BX 

9946. 

.73 



DISCUSSION 



OF THE 

CONJOINT QUESTION, 

IS THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT FOR ANY PART 
OR PORTION OF THE HUMAN FAMILY TAUGHT IN THE SCRIP- 
TURES ; OR, IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE FINAL HOLINESS AND 
HAPPINESS OF ALL MANKIND 1 

BETWEEN 

FREEMAN YATES, 

PASTOR OF THE METHODIST CHURCH, SOUTH-BERWICK, ME. 
AND 

EBEN FRANCIS, 

PASTOR OF THE UNlVERSALl ST CHURCH, DOVER, N. H. 
CONSISTING 'OF 

DELIVERED IN DOVER, N. H. 

IN THE MONTHS OF MARCH AND APRIL, 1843. 




PRINTED BY FRANCIS GRANT. 

1843. 




TO THE READER. 

The following discourses were prepared in haste, am d the multiplicity of our 
other duties. 

As the cong"regation, which was present on the last evf iing of the discussion, so 
unanimously requested their publication, we cheerfully a( rede thereto. 

This, we believe, will be sufficient apology for our present appearance before 
the public. 



DISCUSSION, 



Part I- No. I. 



5JJ THE USiv i aSALIST CKV^WH, -WEDNESDAY EVENING, P' i^RfS 1.5, 1843. 

'3 Y F. Y A T E S. 



Question Is the doctrine of enclle ss punishment for any 
part or portim of the human family taught in the Scrips 
tures ; or, is fh"- doctrine of the f nc J, holiness and happiness 
of all mankind ? 

Questions more importance than these were never pre- 
sented to the mind of man. Our race, of whatever clime, has 
ever looked towards the future \ eith deep interest, and most 
men, whether sage or savage, ha ,ve looked forward with expec- 
itations of future existence. 

The Bible comes to us from the hand of the Father of the 
Universe, dispelling the doubtf 5, and confirming the faith of 
those who receive it, by point ing them to a state of being be- 
yond the confines of the pres ,ent world. To this holy Book we 
must turn, not only to learn \hefact of our future existence, 
but also the character of th at existence. The great body of 
those who regard the Bible as a revelation from God have be- 
lieved that it teaches that man is a moral agent, governed by a 
moral law, the proper penalty of which is endless punishment. 
But some few, in these latter days, have risen up, and called in 
question the doctrine of endless punishment. They tell us that 
the world has been deceived altogether in reference to this sub- 
ject. The Bible does not teach — what the most pious and 



4 



learned men of all age^ of the Christian Church have believed 
— that " a part or portion of the human family" will be end- 
lessly miserable, but directly the contrary, that " all mankind 
will be finally holy and happy." If this be the truth it is im- 
portant that it should be known ; if biblical students for 1800 
years have failed to discover this doctrine, u'hich, it is contend- 
ed, was the doctrine taught by Christ and his apostles, — if this 
discovery was reserved for the wisdom of the present age, we 
may bless ourselves that we live in such aaspicir s times, that 
the lines have fallen to us in such pleasant placc.^ , for the dis- 
covery of truth should always be a matter of thanksgiving. 
But before we congratulate ourselves too highly, let us pause a 
few moments and examine the claims of such new teachers to 
our confidence in their doctrine. We are commanded in scrip- 
ture to " try the spirits, and see if they be of God," for we 
are told that false teachers shall arise." If any man bring to 
us any other gospel than that preached by Christ and his 
apostles, we are bound to reject it. Let us examine, therefore, 
and see Vv'hat was taught by him who " spake as never man 
spake," and those who were instructed at his feet. Was there 
any such thing known in the time of Christ and his apostles as 
the doctrine of endless punishment? and what was the conduct 
of these teachers in reference to this subject ? Were they 
found opposing it, or did they take such a course as would lead 
the believers in endless punishment to conclude that this was 
their doctrine also ? These inquiries I shall endeavour to 
swer on this occasion, 

I. Was the doctrine of endless jmnisliment believed by both 
Jews and Gentiles in the days of Christ and his apostles ? In 
answer to this question it is sufficient to say, that Universal ists 
themselves admit that the doctrine of endless punishment was 
extensively believed by Jews and Gentiles at the time of Christ's 
ministry. The following are some of their testimonies on this 
point. The Pharisees it is well knov/n believed in the endless 
punishment of human souls." Lectures by W. M. Fcrnald, p. 
79. "It is generally admitted that the Jews, in our Savior's day, 
maintained the Pagan notion of immortal happiness for the 
righteous, and undying pain for the sinner." Letter in the 



5 



Trumpet Feb. 3, 1838. " That the Pharisees believed in a 
punishment after death we do not deny." Whittemorc's Notes 
on the Parables, p. 62. Jews and heathen believed in end- 
less punishment. Balfour's Essays, p. 326. 

We might enlarge these quotations from Universal ist authors, 
to show that the doctrine was generally received by both Jews 
and Gentiles. The following is given to show how extensively 
it prevailed among them at the time our Savior, the great teach- 
er of truth and righteousness, was in their midst publishing his 
own gospel. Mr. Balfour, in his inquiry, p. 260, where he at- 
tempts to sh' '^at the Jews obtained their notions of endless 
punishment 'Vl the heathen, says — " The introduction of this 
and other heathen opinions among the Jews was gradual, but 
in the days of our Lord, had become general, with perhaps the 
exception of the sect of the Sadducees." This sect composed 
but a small pait of the Jewish nation. Having established this 
point by the te- jnony of Universalists, we will inquire, 

II. Was Ckr'-' f; or his apostles, who lived and 'preached in the 
midst of beliei . s in endless punishment, ever known to oppose 
this doctrine : • , were they ever opposed by others for believing 
and preaching "ht contrary doctrine? 

The doctrine nf endless punishment is either true or false. 
If it is false, it is the invention of wicked men got up for un- 
hallowed purposes. It was designed by its originators to fright- 
en the superstitious into obedience by exciting their fears, and 
threatening them with endless torments if they should dare to 
go contrary to their wishes. We are told by the opposers of 
this doctrine that it originated among the heathen, and the Jews 
received it from them ; and that in the time of our Lord and 
his apostles it had become general. This doctrine is regarded 
also by its opposers as the most destructive error that ever pre- 
vailed among men ; nay, worse than all others put together. 
We will hear how Universalists of the present day speak in ref- 
erence to this doctrine. What heart-rending feelings they must 
have on account of this dreadful error." In the so call- 
ed Gospel Banner of Feb. 20, 1841, the editor, speaking of the 
doctrine in question, says — " We believe it to be the greatest 
error of our times, — one fraught with the worst results to so- 



6 



'ciety." The Lord save us from an error that reflects so inglo- 
riously upon tiie ever adorable perfections of Almighty God, 
our heavenly Father. We would not see his character tra- 
duced and slandered by such a reflection upon his nature and 
proceedings. Neither would we see our fellow men oppressed 
and made wretched by such a faith." " We believe its influ- 
ence is decidedly bad — injurious to good morals, and destruc- 
tive to human happiness. Put all the errors of the world into 
one, and this would not equal in magnitude the one to which 
we refer. Is it any longer a wonder in your mind, reader, that 
vve, as Universalists, should employ so much of our time in 
preaching and writing against this grand error N"ay, we must 
do it." Mr. Whittemore, in his Modern Histoi' of Universal- 
ism, says., *' It is an error pregnant with evil consequences above 
every otlier." Again, Guide, p. 245 — ''When we see the 
deep misery and heartfelt anguish which a sincere belief in the 
doctrine occasions, the heart bleeds for the unhappy sufferer."* 
These extracts are in perfect keeping with Universalist pres- 
ses and pulpits everywhere. On the supposition that Christ 
and his aipostles had as much feeling for human woe as Univer- 
salists of the present time, and were as capable of judging of 
the effect 3 of this doctrine which prevailed to such an alarming 
•extent in their day, what would be expected of them 1 of 
him especially, whose heart was made of tenderness, and who 
needed not that any should teach him 1 Would it not be ex- 
pected of Christ, who manifested such disinterested benevo- 
lence for the children of men, and whose great object was to 
secure hiaman happiness, that he would have opposed such an 
error as ithis in a manner which would have set the matter at 
rest with his followers at least? But did he, or his apostles 
ever come in collision with either Jew or Gentile on this sub- 
ject 1 Where is it recorded ? Four of his disciples, who were 
his constant followers, have given all of his history that infinite 
wisdom s aw fit for the benefit of future generations, but they 
have not mentioned a single instance of the kind. He was oft- 
en found exposing other errors, trifling indeed when compared 

*These e xtracts are taken from an Essay written by Rev. N. D. George, of the 
Maine (Mt thodist) Conference, to wliich Essay I am indebted for some of the 
thoug^hts C( mtained in tliis discourse. 



7 



with the one of which we spealv, if it be an error, but no where 
do we read of his coming in contact with any one on this 
point; or warning his disciples against it, though he often warned 
them against other errors of the day. The Pharisees frequently 
met him with various objections, but we never read of their 
opposing him for believing and preaching that ail men would 
be saved. 

We have a brief history of the acts of the apostles, giving 
frequent accounts of disputations with both Jews and Gentiles,, 
who were believers in endless misery, but no account of oppo- 
sition on either hand in respect to this doctrine. We have 
twenty-two Epistles, written by the apostles and addressed to. 
believers in endless punishment, and while they name and ex- 
pose numerous errors the correctness of this doctrine is never 
called in question. 

" Is it not strange, passing strange, that the greatest teacher 
the world ever saw, or ever will see, whose heart was made of 
tenderness, should dwell in the midst of a people believing in 
an error which outweighs all others put together, and never once 
raised a warning voice against it, nor showed them its man-de- 
grading, God-dishonoring character ? His apostles too, who 
received their theology from his own blessed lips, labored and 
reared Churches in the midst of believers in the hated doc- 
trine, yet nowhere in their history do we learn that they raised a 
single note of alarm against it." 

In view of the fact that the doctrine of endless punishment 
so extensively prevailed in the days of Christ and his apostles, 
would not their silence on this subject be enough to show that 
they held the same doctrine, and therefore, that it is the doc- 
trine of the Bible 1 But, 

III. / come now to a third inquiry. — Did Christ and his 
Apostles use such language in their discourses and writings as 
was used hy believers in endless punishment in reference to this 
subject 1 

It will not be necessary for me to show that Christ or his 
apostles ever entered into any labored defence of the doctrine 
of endless punishment to prove that it was their doctrine. As 
this doctrine was almost universally believed, it was not necessa- 



8 



ry that they should take such a course. They did not spend their 
time in laboring to prove what every body admitted to be true. 
If I can show that they took the same course, and used the 
same language, in reference to this subject, as those who are 
admitted to be believers in endless punishment, my point will 
be gained. 

First, I will inquire, what was the character of the Savior's 
teaching '? W as his manner of preaching calculated to con- 
found the believers in endless punishment, or to confirm them 
in their belief? I will suppose a case. A clergyman comes 
into this village and seeks an introduction to my opponent as a 
brother in the ministry. On the following sabbath he is invited 
to officiate. He reads for his morning lesson the seventh chap- 
ter of Matthew, the concluding portion of our Lord's Sermon 
on the Mount. Such passages as the following are read without 
comment : " Enter ye in at the straight gate ; for wide is the 
gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and ma- 
ny there be which go in thereat : because straight is the gate, 
and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be 
that find it." " Not every one that saith unto me. Lord, Lord, 
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the 
will of my Father which is in heaven. Many shall say to me 
in that day. Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, 
and in thy name have cast out devils ? and in thy name done 
many wonderful works ? And then v/ill I profess unto them, I 
never knew you ; depart from me ye that work iniquity." 
" And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth 
them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his 
house upon the sand ; and the rains descended, and the floods 
came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it 
fell ; and great was the fall of it." 

The stranger reads for his text, Except ye repent, ye shall 
all likewise perish," {Luke xiii, 3.) He proceeds without any 
labored criticisms to explain away, and gives a plain and scrip- 
tural view of repentance. To show its necessity, he declares 
that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." 
To show that men are pursuing a wrong course and ought to 
turn about, he exclaims with Ezekiel, turn ye, turn ye, from 



9 



your evil ways, for why will ye die? and with Isaiah, " Let the 
wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, 
and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon 
him ; and to our God for he will abundantly pardon. For my 
thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, 
saith the Lord." He repeats his text, " Except ye repent ye 
shall all likewise perish." To enforce this doctrine, he speaks 
of the destruction of the old world by water, of the cities of 
the plain by fire, as did Christ, — of the burial of the harden- 
ed Egyptians in the Red Sea, and of the calamities of the Jews 
in consequence of their impenitence. He speaks of individu- 
als, — of Lot's wife, of Belshazer, and of Herod who was smit- 
ten with worms. Again he repeats his text with still greater 
emph'dsis, " Except YE rtpc?it, ye shall all Ukeivise perish." 
The speaker closes with the language of Paul, God " now com- 
mandeth all men everywhere to rej)e?it, because he hath ap- 
pointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteous- 
ness, by that man whom he hath ordained." (Acts xvii. 30, 
31.) Would you begin to conclude that the speaker had prov- 
ed universal salvation ? or would you not at once declare that 
you had been imposed upon by a bigoted partialist ? And yet 
this is the manner in which Christ and his apostles preached. 

I shall now introduce a few passages of scripture, which I 
regard as teaching the doctrine in question, and which the Jews 
and those addressed must have so understood. 

Luke xvi. 22 — 28. " And it came to pass that the beggar 
died, and was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom : the 
rich man also died, and was buried : and in hell he lifted up 
his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and 
Lazarus in his bosom : and he cried and said. Father Abraham 
have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the 
tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue ; for I am torment- 
ed in this flame. But Abraham said, son, remember that thou in 
thy life-time receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus 
evil things ; but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf 
fixed ; so that they which would pass from hence to you can- 
not ; neither can they pass to us that would come from thence." 



10 



The object of this quotation is to show that Christ used such 
language as was used by the Jews in reference to future and 
eternal punishment. This will be seen at once by a quotation 
from Joi>('pJiiis^ who lived and wrote in that age of the world. 
Let it be remembered that Josephus was a Jewish historian. 
The extracts are made from his discourse to the Greeks con- 
cerning Hades, which is the word that is rendered hell in the 
above passage. " Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the 
righteous and the unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to 
speak of it. In this region there is a certain place set apart, 
as a lake of unquenchable fire, whereinto we suppose no one 
hath hitherto been cast, but it is prepared for a day afore deter- 
mined of God, in which one righteous sentence shall be de- 
servedly passed upon all men ; when the unjust, and those that 
have been disobedient to God, and have given honor to such 
idols as have been the vain operations of the hands of men, as 
to God himself, shall be adjudged to this everlasting punish- 
ment, as having been the cause of defilement ; while the just 
shall obtain an incorruptible and never fading kingdom. 
These are nov*' indeed confined in hades, but not in the same 
place wherein the unjust are confined." Speaking of the place 
of the just, he says, " This place we call the bosom of Abra- 
ham." 

With these extracts, exhibiting the belief of the Jews, it is 
easy to see how they must have understood the language of 
Christ in the above passage. When he spoke of Lazarus be- 
ing carried to Abraham's hosom, the mind would at once be 
carried to the world of departed souls, and to that part of it 
prepared for the just. " This place we call the bosom of Abra- 
ham." When he spoke of the rich man, lifting up his eyes in 
hades, they at once called to mind that part of the invisible 
world in which the souls of the unjust are " retained until the 
day afore determined of God, in which one righteous sentence 
shall be deservedly passed upon all men." If there is no such 
thing as future punishment, and consequently no such place as 
that mentioned by Josephus, how can this conduct of the Sav- 
ior be accounted for ? Does he not appear to adopt the notion 
of the Jews ? and how will he escape the charge of deception ? 
Let my opponent attend to this matter. 



11 



Luke xii. 4, 5. " And I say unto you, my friends, be not 
afraid of them that kill the body, but after that have no more 
that they can do ; but I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear ; 
fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into 
hell : yea, I say unto you, fear him.." Mark ix. 43, 44. " And 
if thy hand offend thee, cut it off ; it is better for thee to enter 
into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into 
the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth 
not and the fire is not quenched." This last expression, 
(where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched) 
occurs three times in this connection. The question again 
comes up — How did the Jews understand this language of 
the Savior ? They could not have understood him as speaking 
of the grave, for two reasons. 1. Whatever is m.eant by hell 
here, it is a place into which man has no power to throw his 
victim, which is not true concerning the grave. 2. There is 
connected with this hell a worm that dletli not, and cijire that 
shall never he quenched, which is not true of the grave. How 
then would they be likely to understand this language 1 Sup- 
pose it to be language familiar to them, such as they were in 
the habit of using when speaking of endless punishment, would 
they not be very likely to understand it as speaking of the same 
doctrine ? I will here introduce one more extract from Jose- 
phus, to show that this was the very language employed by the 
Jews when speaking of endless punishment, and consequently 
they must have understood Christ as teaching this doctrine. 
Speaking of the judgment, (which he held to be after the res- 
urrection,) and of the judge, he says, " at whose judgment- 
seat, when all men and angels, and demons shall stand, — 
they will send forth one voice, and say, just is thy judg- 
ment ; the rejoinder to which will bring a just sentence upon 
both parties, by giving justly to those who have done well, an 
everlasting fruition ; but allotting to the lovers of wicked works 
eternal punishment. To these belong the unquenchable fire^ 
and that without end, and a certain fiery icorm, never dying, 
and not destroying the body, but continuing its eruptions out 
of the body with never ceasing grief." Here we see that 
Christ employs their own phraseology, that with whish th©y 



12 



were familiar ; and with what propriety or consistency, I ask, 
if he did not allow the doctrine 1 Let my opponent answer 
this question — if he can. 

I will now call attention to Matthew xxv. 31 — 4G. " When 
the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels 
with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and 
before him shall be gathered all nations ; and he shall separate 
them one from the other, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from 
the goats : and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but 
the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on 
his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father ; inherit the 
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world ; 
for I was an hungered and ye gave me meat," &.c. " Then 
shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, 
ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his 
angels; for I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat," &/C. 
*' And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the 
righteous into life eternal." 

Now call to mind the fact that the Jews believed in a gen- 
eral judgment following the resurrection, and in the existence 
of a devil and evil angels, and in a hell burning with unquench- 
able fire, and that at the judgment, the wicked would go into 
everlasting punishment ; would they not be likely to under- 
stand Christ as teaching the same doctrine ? How otherwise 
could they have understood his language in this discourse ? 
Must not every candid man be constrained to admit that the 
Lord Jesus Christ not only countenanced these opinions of 
the Jews, but taught them clearly, and distinctly, as his own 
doctrine ? If then, he did not allow the doctrine of endless 
punishment, how can his conduct on this occasion be vindica- 
ted so as to clear him from the charge of gross hypocrisy and 
dishonesty ? It will avail nothing to attempt to show by criti- 
cism that the terms used here do not necessarily mean what 
they have generally been understood to mean. For instance, 
that the word everlasting in v. 46, does not strictly mean end- 
lesSj for this is the term employed by the Jews to signify 
endless duration, and they must have so understood it in the 
a?feove passage. 



13 



As this is an important passage in this dicussion, I will offer 
a few remarks to show that it cannot be consistently intepreted 
so as to teach any thing short of future and endless punish- 
ment. I suppose the only question that will come up in this 
discussion in relation to this passage, is this, Does it relate in 
its fulfilment to this world, or must it have its accomplishment 
in the future state ? If 1 can show that it cannot be fufilled 
in this state of existence, it will then be applied, with common 
consent, to the resurrection state. And if the punishment 
threatened is to be inflicted in the future world, the contro- 
versy will be at an end. 

We have already seen that the Jews must have understood 
the Savior as speaking of a general judgment at the end of this 
world, when he will receive his saints into his everlasting 
kingdom, and sentence the wicked to endless punishment. 
The following considerations I think sufficient to show that 
we must so understand it now. 

1. The rewards and punishments here spoken of are to be 
distributed '^^ when the Son of Man shall come in his glory. 
This can mean nothing short of his personal appearance to our 
world, as will appear from a few passages of scripture which 
speak of his coming in such a manner as has never yet been 
witnessed. Matt. xxvi. 64. " Hereafter shall ye see the Son 
of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the 
clouds of heaven." — Acts i. 9, 10, 11. "And when he had 
spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up ; and 
a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they look- 
ed steadfastly toward heaven, as he went up, behold, two men 
stood by them in white apparel ; which also said, ye men of 
Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven ? This same Je- 
sus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in 
like manner, as ye have seen him go into heaven." — 1 Thess. 
iv. 16, 17. " For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, 
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the 
trump of God : and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then 
we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together 
with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air ; and so 
shall we ever be with the Lord." — Rev. i. 7. "Behold, he 



14 



Cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they 
also, which pierced him ; and all the kindred of the earth shall 
wail because of him." 

These quotations are sufficient to establish the following 
points : 

(1) The Son of man is to come again, — " this same Jesus — 
the Lord himself.'''' 

(2) He is to come '^^ in like maimer^'' as he ivent up in the clouds 
of heaven ivith the voice of the archangel, and ivith the trump 
of God.'' 

(3) His coming will be visible, — ''ye shall see him, every 
eye shall see him.'' 

(4) " The dead in Christ" ivill then have a resurrection. 

I think it is now proved that the coming of the Son of Man 
in his glory" cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, but 
to his coming to judge the world in their resurrection state. In 
farther support of this view, I remark, 

2. That his coming is to be accompanied by " all the holy 
angels." When has Christ ever yet appeared with all the holy 
angels ? 3. ''He shall sit upon the throne of his glory" at his 
coming here spoken of How did Christ sit upon the throne of 
his glory at the destruction of Jerusalem, any more than he did 
at the fall of Babylon ? 

4 " All nations shall be gathered" before Christ at his coming 
here referred to. Has this ever taken place ? 

5. Christ shall " separate" the gathered nations at that time. 
This has never taken place, nor will it till the general judg- 
ment. 

6. The righteous are to be rewarded at this coming of Christ, 
such as cannot take place in this world ; for the reward is in 
consideration of actions that are passed, and they are put in 
possession of a " kingdom" which they did not before possess ; 
which cannot, therefore, be the gospel dispensation. 

7. At the coming of Christ described in the text, the wick- 
ed will be sentenced to " everlasting punishment. 

As these considerations show conclusively that this passage 
must be applied to the resurrection state, it is therefore proved 
that " a part or portion of the human family" will endure " end- 
lefwf punishment." 



15 



Having examined the character of Christ's preaching in ref- 
erence to future and eternal punishment, we will now inquire 
into the manner in which the apostles preached and wrote in 
respect to this subject. It has already been remarked that not 
an instance can be found where they directly opposed the doc- 
trine of endless punishment, though they travelled extensively 
among Jews and Gentiles, and held frequent controversies 
with them on various subjects. In all the twenty-two Epistles 
written by them under the inspiration of the Almighty, no in- 
stance of opposition to this doctrine can be found. How does 
this look when compared with the labors and productions of the 
opposers of this doctrine at the present day ? What would be 
thought of a Universalist Minister of the present day, who 
should publish a single sermon and not distinctly oppose the 
doctrine of endless punishment ? Would his people be satisfied 
with it. 

But I am prepared to show that the apostles, like their divine 
teacher, employed language directly calculated to confirm the 
believers in endless misery, and which has led the brightest 
intellects that have ever adorned Christendom to believe that 
they taught this doctrine. 

Take for example the language of Paul, 2 Thess. 1. 7 — 9. 
" When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with 
his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them 
that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruc- 
tion from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
power." Is not this strange talk for a Universalist minister.'' 
especially when writing to believers in endless misery ! Would 
those who claim to be his brethren of the present day be guilty 
of such a thing ? Let the candid think of this. 

I know of but two applications that are made of this text. 
Believers in endless punishment generally apply it to a day of 
general judgment, when the Lord Jesus shall make his appear- 
ance to be glorified in his saints, and sentence the wicked to 
endless punishment. Those who deny that the doctrine of end- 
less punishment is taught in the scriptures, apply it to the de- 
struction of Jerusalem. To the latter application of this pas- 
sage, I have three objections : 



16 



1. Tiie church at Thessalonica was not composed of Jews, 
but principally of devout Greeks and converted heathen. 
"Hence," says Dr. Clarke, "we find in the epistle but few 
allusions to the Jews, and but few references to the peculiarities 
of their civil or religious institutions." 

2. Tliis church was situated too far from Jerusalem to be ma- 
terially affected by the judgments which befell this devoted ci- 
ty. Thessalonica was a city in Europe distant nearly one 
thousand miles from the noise and blood of the siege that prov- 
ed the overthrow of the Jews." 

3. The declaration of the apostle in the second chapter of this 
epistle iiUerly forbids the application of this text to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. In his first Epistle he had spoken of the sec- 
ond advent of Christ, and it seems that some at least, supposed 
that it was about to take place. But he writes again unto them, 
and takes occasion to set them right on this subject. And how 
does he do it } by informing them that he only meant that Je- 
rusalem would be destroyed by the Romans No ! He reas- 
sures them of the fact that Christ is to come again, but proceeds 
to inform them that the event is not about to take place as some 
supposed. He says, " Now we beseech you, brethren, by the 
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering togeth- 
er unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, 
neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us, as 
that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by 
any means ; for that day shall not come, except there come a 
faUing away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of 
perdition ; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is 
called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he as God, sitteth 
in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God !" 

This man of sin, v/ho must be revealed before Christ could 
come, is considered by commentators generally to mean Pa- 
pacy, which was not revealed till centuries after the destruction 
of Jerusalem. Therefore, it is certain that the text under con- 
sideration cannot refer to that event ; but it must refer to the 
coming of Christ to punish the ungodly, and to be glorified in 
his saints in the end of this world. 

If my limits would permit, I should like to introduce the tes- 
timony of all the apostles, but time will not allow it. I hasten 
to inquire. 



17 



IV. Were the Christianas fathers^ loho lived in, and immediate- 
ly after, the days of the Apostles, believers in the doctrine of end- 
less punishment ? 

If those who were converted to Christianity by the Apostles, 
and who associated v/ith them in the christian ministry, and oth- 
ers who lived immediately after their time, were believers in the 
doctrine of endless punishment, the fact will go far to prove 
that the apostles were believers and advocates of this doctrine* 
I do not appeal to the fathers as doctrinal, but as historical au- 
thority. If Christ and his apostles were believers in no future 
punishment, and that all men will be finally holy and happy, 
the apostles of course would not have omitted to instruct the 
churches collected by them, in such important doctrines, for no 
faithful Universalist preacher would fail in this part of his duty. 

This being the case, we should expect to find a clear state- 
ment of these sentiments in the early christian writings, espe- 
cially of those fathers who were cotemporary with, or immedi- 
ately succeeding the apostles. But this is so far from being the 
case, that the nearer we approach the apostolic age, the less 
do we find of any thing that looks like such sentiments." The 
writings of Barnabas, (the companion of St. Paul,) Clement of 
Rome, Herm.as, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who were cotempora- 
ry vv^ith the apostles, have come down to us ; also the writings 
of Justin JMartyr, Tatian, Irenseus, Theophilus, and others. 
Now v/here, v/e ask, in the writings of all the fathers is to be 
found that there is no future and etern^ punishment ? Where 
have they once said that all mankind will be finally holy and 
happy ? Universalists do not pretend to find these sentiments 
in their writings, but on the contrary, they admit that the fath- 
ers prior to A. D. 196 maintained the opposite sentiment. H. 
Ballou 2d. in History of Universalism, p. 67, says in reference to 
those who lived and wrote prior to A. D. 196, that nearly all al- 
lude to, or expressly assert a future judgment, and a future state 
of punishment, seven call it the everlasting, the eternal f re tor- 
ments. Again he says of them " that there was a future state 
of suffering, they all agreed, p. 83." 

I might make extracts from accredited translations of the 
fathers, showing that they fully believed and taught the doc- 
trine of endless punishment ; but one only shall sufBce. Jus- 

3 



18 



tin Martyr wrote his apologies for the Christians about 50 years 
from the death of St. John. In stating the beUef of Christians 
to the Roman Emperor, he says, "And moreover we say, that 
the souls of the wicked, being reunited to the same bodies, shall 
be consigned over to eternal torments, and not, as Plato would 
have it, to the period of a thousand years only ; but if you will 
affirm this to be incredible, or impossible, there is no help, but 
you must fall from error to error till the day of judgment con- 
vinces you that we are right." 

I will now bring this argument to a close, by stating what 
has been proved. 

1st. It has been proved from the admissions and testimonies 
of Universalist authors, that the doctrine of endless punish- 
ment was generally believed by Jews and Gentiles in the days 
of Christ and his apostles. 

2d. It has been affirmed that Christ and his apostles never, in 
a single instance, opposed either Jew or Gentile on account of 
ibis doctrine, which we are told is " worse than all the other 
errors put together," nor were they ever known to warn their 
followers against it ; and farther, that no instance can be found 
in which they were opposed for preaching the opposite doctrine. 
I call on my opponent to give us one instance of the kind from 
the whole New Testament, only one — this he cannot do. 

3d. It has been proved that Christ and his apostles, so far 
from opposing this doctrine, imbodied thtir sentiments in refer- 
ence to the punishment of the wicked, in the same language 
employed by the Jews to express endless punishment. 

4th. It has been proved that the churches gathered by the 
apostles were, so far as is known, behevers in endless punish- 
ment. 

I conclude, therefore, that the doctrine of endless punish- 
ment was taught by Christ and his apostles, and is, consequent- 
ly, the doctrine of the Bible. 



DISCUSSION, 



Paiit I. No. IL 

m THE U.MVERSALIST CHURCH, MARCH 15, 1843. 
BY E. FRANCIS. 



REJOINDER. 

^' He that isjii'st in his own cause seemeth just ; but his neigh- 
bor cometh and searcheth him.^' 

PROv. xviii. 17. 

I HAVE selected this language of the wise man, as a suitable 
motto for my rejoinder to the discourse to which you have list- 
ened from my brother in the ministry, yet of an opposite faith 
in some important points. 

And here it is proper that I should remark, that this contro- 
versy is not one of my seeking. The challenge, if such it may 
be called, came from my brother, and, as it is my pleasure and 
my duty to speak in behalf of the " doctrine once delivered to 
the saints," and which is nearly ''etery where spoken against'* 
in the religious world, I should be recreant to my calling, did 
I refuse to meet what I deem error, with the sword of God's 
truth. 

My prayer to the great Father of spirits, is, that I may be 
enabled to proceed in my investigations and remarks with can- 
dor; that I may be kept from exhibiting any other disposition^ 
than that of my master; and that the grand object before my 
mind, shall be^ to learn ^what is truth.* 



20 



My brother, after delivering his introduction, has presented 
the discourse under four separate divisions. I propose to re- 
ply in the same order. 

I agree with him that the questions we are discussing, are 
of the highest importance ; and that it is to the Holy Bible all 
" must turn, not only to learn the fact, but also the character 
of the future existence." 

I do not feel willing to allow the assertion, that only " some 
few in these latter days,'''' declare that, " the Bible does not teach 
what the most pious and learned men of all ages of the chris- 
tian church have believed" concerning endless punishment. 
But, as one assertion is of as much weight as another; I meet 
this with the declaration that there have been " biblical stu- 
■dents," all along through these " 1800 years" past, who have not 
only *' discovered,^'' but rejoiced in and published to the world, the 
truth " that all mankind will be finally holy and happy." And 
this fact I am prepared to prove, as also the heathen origin of 
the commonly received sentiment, in the religious world, that 
" some part or portion of the human family, will be endlessly 
miserable." But this is not required by our question, w^hicli 
makes the Sacred Scriptures the test; and not the opinions of 
those whose outer tabernacles Imve long since crumbled away 
to dust. 

I agree with my brother that we must " try the sjnriis,'' and 
" if any man bring to us any other gospel, than that preached 
by Christ and his apostles, we are bound to reject it." 

Methinks I might with propriety style my brother and his 
co-workers " neii) teachers,^'' since his denomination cannot 
trace its existence as such, I believe, much over one century. 

L The first question, in my brother's discourse, that forms a 
particular division, is this — " Was the doctrine of endless pun- 
ishment believed by both Jews and Gentiles in the days of Christ 
and his ApostlesV He has quoted from Universalist icriters, 
sufficiently, to convince the most doubting, that we acknowl- 
edge its truth; and further, he has presented testimony from 
our authors, that the doctrine came not from God, but that it 
was a Pagan notion. 

He does not deny its heathenish origin. As he has quoted 
"Balfour," among others, as authority, I will quote the same 



21 



language with a few sentences preceding and succeeding it. 
After fixing two important points in reply to a question which 
he proposes, he says, "Again, it is stated by Dr. Campbeil, 
and others, that during, and after the Babylonish captivity, the 
Jews came to learn from the heathen, the notion of endless 
punishment in a future state. This we have seen above. The 
introduction of this, and other heathen opinions among the 
Jews, was gradual, but in the days of our Lord had become 
general, with perhaps the exception of the sect of the Saddu- 
cees. But though they learned from the heathen this notion 
of a place of endless punishment, they could not learn from 
them, to call it by the name Gehenna, for this was a Hebrew 
term." 

Gehexxa, I should remark, is a word that "is uniformly 
rendered the valley of Hinnom, throughout the Old Testa- 
ment; it occurs in the New Testament twelve times, and is 
rendered hell every time by the English translators and by Lu- 
ther, though it is seldom so rendered in any foreign version. — 
As the name of a well known place near Jerusalem, it is 
as improper to render it hell, as it would be to render ' Baby- 
lon,' or 'Egypt' by the word hell." 

Enough has now been said upon this first division, to which 
I cheerfully assent. 

IL My brother's second position, is in defence of this ques- 
tion: "Was Christ or his apostles u'ho lived and preached in 
the midst of believers in endless misery, ever known to oppose this 
doctrine; or were they ever opposed by others for believing and 
preaching the contrary doctrineV 

My brother says "the doctrine of endless punishment is 
either true or false." No one will dispute this. He tells us 
how he conceives it must have originated, if it is false. And 
as I have already said, I cannot discover that he pretends to 
deny its false — its heathen birth or invention. He does not, 
I believe, tell us from whence it came if true. Probably the 
inference was intended to be drawm, that it came from the 
ALL-WISE JEHOVAH. " To the law and to the testimony" we 
must then look as the criterion. 

The feelings of Universalists, towards the sentiment we are 
considering, my brother has faithfully proclaimed to you, with 



flume of our reasons lor cherishing them. He then arcue.s: 
*' On tlie supposition that Christ and his apostles had as much 
feeling for human woe, and were as capable of judging of the 
cfiects of this doctrine, which prevailed to such an extent in 
their day," as we have, " it would be expected of them, that 
they would have opposed such an error." 

And he further thinks it "strange, passing strange," that 
Christ and his apostles "no where in their history," so 
far as he can learn, " ever raised a single note of alarm a- 
gainst it." This is a bold assertion — is it the fact? Under 
his first head my brother quotes from "Fernald." I quote 
the same language with a portion of its context, in reply to the 
position I am now noticing. " The doctrine of endless imnish- 
ment is expresshj contradicted by the Holy Scriptures. With 
reference to this, we must consider the acknowledged difficulty 
of proving a negative. The Scriptures rather tell us what ^s 
true, than labor to explode what is not true." 

" The Pharisees, it is well known, believed in the endless 
punishment of human souls. Their doctrine was, that the 
souls of the wicked, at death, passed immediately into a state 
of never ending torment. Yet our Savior (Matt. xvi. 12) said 
to his disciples, without any reservation, "Beware of the doc- 
trine of the Pharisees!" — a very singular circumstance, if that 
one doctrine, which is magnified as the very pillar of morality 
in our day, was the truth of the Almighty. Why should Jesus 
caution against the doctrine of the Pharisees, so sweepingly 
and so unreservedly, if they held at least one of the most im- 
portant, soul-saving truths? They did, unquestionably, teach 
the doctrine of endless punishment, and yet our Savior said, 
Beware! And so say we. "Beware of the doctrine of the 
Pharisees!" Christ and his apostles were not ' si7eii^' on this 
subject, but in consequence of their preaching the opposite 
sentiment they met with trials and afflictions. 

Jesus was despised because he was "the friend of sinners." 
Those old, self-righteous Jews were not willing that such vile 
creatures, that all should be brought to repentance. 

My brother says on this head, at the close of his discourse — 
" No instance can be found in which they [the disciples]* were 
opposed for preaching the opposite docti'ine," — i. e. the firjal 
iaIvatioH of all mea. He sayfr, " I call upon my opponent t» 



23 



give us one instance of the kind Irom the whole New Testn^ 
ment — only one. This he cannot do," Well, my friends, J. 
will produce one instance, and will submit to your candid 
judgment whether it meets the case or not. 1 Timothy iv. 10, 
'* For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we 
trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially 
of those that believe." I need offer no comments. Paul the a- 
postle, gives his own reason, why they suffered reproach. 

I have thus replied to the second position of the discourse, 
and have shown that we have no reason to suppose that Christ 
or his apostles, from any thing they suffered, or any thing they 
did not say, believed in the doctrine of endless punishment^ 
OFj that it is the doctrine of the Bible. 

III. " I come now to the third inquiry;'''' and this is the most 
important division. On this, the question under discussion 
comes directly into consideration. " Is the doctrine of endless 
punishment for any part or portion of the human family taught in 
the Scriptures?" 

My brother presents the subject under the following 
question: 

" Did Christ and his apostles use such language in their dis- 
courses and ivritings as was used by believers in endless punish- 
ment in reference to that subject?" An affirmative answer to 
this question, appears to be assumed; for my brother so far 
from attempting to present language commonly used by the be- 
lievers in endless punishment as descriptive of their views; and 
then presenting testimony of the same kind, from the teachings 
of Christ and the apostles, — says, " They did not spend their 
time in laboring to prove what every body admitted to be true." 
And further — " If I can show that they took the same course, 
and used the same language in reference to this subject, as 
those who are admitted to be believers in endless punishment, 
my point will be gained." 

1. In support of this last declaration he speaks first of the 
character of the Savior's teaching. He introduces a case in 
illustration of his theme, and quotes freely from Matt. 7th 
chapter; he also mentions the supposed preacher's text, and 
gives an outline of his discourse. It is not necessary that I 
should notice this further than to remark, that Universalists 



24 



profess to rc3ccive the teachings of Christ as truth; and that we 
heUeve in the necessity of repentance, true, sincere repentance; 
as firmly as any christians. I might off-set the illustration by 
another of the same sort, though to his mind, perhaps, oppo- 
site in its main features. But he does not present his supposed 
case, I believe, as j)roof of the affirmative of his question, 
therefore it is not my duty to examine the Scriptures quoted, 
in this place. I will only add, that as I have learned Christ 
and the apostles, they preached differently from what is rep- 
resented in the illustration; to be sure he has strung passages 
from different parts of the bible together; but that amounts to 
nothing if they are perverted from their true meaning. Hard- 
ly one of those passages, will he or his fellow believers, 
rely upon as proof of their doctrine of endless punishment. 

We come now to those passages from the Savior's teach- 
ings, that my brother conceives, to be the strongest proofs of 
his sentiment of endless punishment. They are found in Luke 
xvi. 22 — 26: Luke xii. 4, 5: Mark ix. 43, 44, and Matthew 
XXV, 31 — 46. Four distinct passages: these he gives us as 
proof texts of the endless punishment of apart or portion of 
the human family. Now what think you, my friends, when we 
declare unto you that three of these are parables; — three out 
of the four passages. The parable of the Rich Man and Laz- 
arus; the parable of the Offending Hand; and the parable of 
the Sheep and Goats. 

And what are parables ? Are they literal histories of facts, 
and circumstances that have transpired, or will take place ? 
None will presume to make such an assertion I think. The 
word parable signifies an allegory, a fable, a fictitious narra- 
tion. Bishop Lowth describes a parable thus, — "it is that 
kind of allegory which consists of a continued narration of a 
fictitious event, applied by way of simile, to the illustration 
of some important truth." The parable of the poor man and 
his ewe lamb, related by the prophet Nathan to king David, 
(2 Samuel xii. 1 — 6) is a beautiful illustration, of the use that 
are made of tkem strikingly to illustrate and enforce important 
truths. Now no one would think of interpreting that fable as 
a literal fact. The parables of Christ were drawn chiefly from 
the manners, customs, occupations, and views of the Jews. 



25 



Sometimes he made them to conform to the religious prejudi- 
ces and superstitions of the IsraeUtes, yet without endorsing 
these superstitions as truth. The parable of the rich man and 
Lazarus is of this description. 

All the doctrinal and moral truths and principles of the gos- 
pel are revealed by the Savior in plain, distinct and literal 
language, without figure or parable. Parables are not actual 
histories. The Savior uttered them simply to illustrate and 
bring more directly to the comprehension of his hearers, truths 
which he, in other instances, expressed in the most distinct and 
literal language. These remarks we wish the hearer to keep 
in remembrance, as they have a general application to the par- 
ables presented for our examination. Luke xvi. 22 — 26. The 
parable commences with the 19th verse, and closes with the 
31st. My brother's quotation, however, commences with the 
22d verse. "Audit came to pass that the beggar died, and 
was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man 
also died, and was buried; and in hell he hfled up his eyes, 
being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus 
in his bosom; and he cried and said, father Abraham, have 
mercy on mc, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of 
his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in 
this flame. But Abraham said, son, remember that thou in thy 
lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil 
things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And 
besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fix- 
ed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; 
neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." 

My brother says, on this parable: " The object of this quo- 
tation is to show that Christ used such language as was used 
by the Jews, 'in reference to future and eternal punishment." 
And in proof of this he quotes at length from Josephus, who 
discoursed to the Greeks — Heathens — Pagans — on the no- 
tion of Hades, or, as it is translated, hell. Well, what if 
Christ did use similar language, for the purpose of illustrating 
and setting forth, in a forcible manner, to the understanding of 
his hearers, some great truth he wishsd to impress upon their 
minds. Does that prove that he acknowledged such language 
or such ideas as literally true ? not unless he applies it to the 
4 



26 



same object. Well, docs Christ apply this p;iriii)le to the fu- 
ture state of existence ? This is assumed. My brother does 
not show how Christ does this. I call for proof upon this 
point. Wh:it is there in the parable itself or its connection, 
that will convince us that it is a description of endless punish- 
ment? Why, the word liadcs is found in the 23d verse ; and 
hades or hell as it is translated, is supposed to be decisive evi- 
dence of a place of endless punishment having been prepared 
for a part or portion of the human family." 

We are told that by Abraham's bosom, is meant ** that 
part of the world of departed souls, prepared for ihejust^ It 
was there that the Angels carried Lazarus. We would like to 
know what right Lazarus had there, if he was a. just man in 
iJiis world? From aught the record tells us, he mio-ht have 
been heir to large estates, and by a course of profligacy and 
wickedness, become diseased in body, and so poverty stricken 
as to be forced to beg for a morsel of bread, to sustain a mis- 
erable life. By hades we are told is meant " that part of the in- 
visible world in which the souls of the unjust are retained un- 
til the" day of general judgment. When that is to be nobody 
knows. 

We wish to know what great crime the rich man had com- 
mitted, that should doom him to this place ? The record 
makes no charge against him, only that he was rich in this 
world's goods, it does not tell us he was unjust, for aught we 
know he might have been one of the most charitable, kind- 
hearted, and benevolent individuals that ever lived. My 
brother, perhaps, has some knowledge about this matter that I 
have not. 

I will offer a remark or two upon the word hades, and leave 
this parable, as time will not be sufficient to examine it tho- 
roughly. 

Upon the word Hades I presume my brother rests his argu- 
ment. This word occurs eleven times in the New Testament, 
and is in every instance save one, translated by the English 
term hell. Hades is a Greek word that corresponds with the 
Hebrew word Sheol; and in almost every instance throughout 
the Old Testament the LXX, who made what is denominated 
the Septuagint translation, about 277 years before Christ, have 
translated the original Hebrew Sheol by the Greek Hades. 



27 



111 order therefore to learn the true meaning of the word 
Hades in the New Testament, we must ascertain its meaning 
in the Old Testament. 

Now these words in the Old Testament, never signify a 
place of literal torment. The original and true meaning of 
these words, have reference to the state of the dead, without 
any reference to their happiness or misery — the place to 
which the Jews believed the souls of all the dead went when 
they left the body. This is the sole and invariable meaning 
of these words. I do not think my brother will pretend to de- 
ny this. 

Dr. Whitby says — " Sheoi throughout the Old Testament, 
and Hades in the Septuagint, answering to it, signify, not the 
place of punishment, or of the souls of bad men only, but the 
grave only, or the place of death." Much other testimony of 
like character, might be produced if necessary- The one to 
which I alluded is 1 Cor. xv. 55 — where hades is translated 
grave. " O grave [hades] where is thy victory ?" It would 
have been just as proper to have used the word liell as the 
translation of hades, in this instance, as in any other portion 
of the New Testament. My brother will not deny this. 

I must hasten to his second proof text. Luke xii. 4, 5. 
And I say unto you, my friends, be not afraid of them that 
kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do. 
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear : Fear him which af- 
ter he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell ; yea I say unto 
you, Fear him." This my brother has connected with the parable 
of the Offending Hand. He says nothing upon the passage it- 
self, to prove that it has particular reference to the sentiment, 
that a part or portion of the human family will suffer endless 
punishment." He assumes that the word Hell, here, refers to 
another world. The original word in this passage is Gehenna, 
and the same word occurs in his third proof text, which I will 
presently notice. Upon this passage in Luke, I need only re- 
mark, that I believe as firmly as any in the infinite power of 
God. 

It will be seen by examining the connection, and more par- 



28 



ticularly the account which Matthew has given, (ch. x.) that 
Jesus having called the twdce disciples, and given them their 
mission, proceeded to give them certain instructions which he 
deemed needful, and further he tells them whom they sliould 
fear^ and whom they should not fear ; viz. — that they should 
not fear human tribunals, those men whose power was limited ; 
but they should fear the great God ; that Being who is all pow- 
erful — who is infinite. Enough, however, upon this passage. 

III. The next proof text is Mark ix. 43, 44. " And if thy 
hand offend thee, cut it off : it is better for thee to enter into 
life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the 
fire that never shall be quenched : where their worm dieth not, 
and the fire is not quenched." Upon this and the former pas- 
sage, my brother gives " two reasons" why the Jews " could 
not have understood Jesus as speaking of the grave.^^ They 
are good reasons, such as I suppose any Universalist would 
give. I agree with him, there is no reference to the grave. 
He introduces another extract from Josephus in further proof 
of the opinions of the Jews concerning hades. And triumph- 
antly calls upon his opponent, to answer this question : he says, 

Here we see that Christ employs their own phraseology, that 
with which they were familiar, and with what propriety or con- 
sistency, I ask, if he did not allow the doctrine?" Well, my 
friends, I am not disposed to answer this question ; for the ve- 
ry good reason that the original word in the two passages ren- 
dered hell, is not hades, but Gehenna. My brother has made 
a slight mistake in reference to the passage under considera- 
tion. The English word hell is used by our translators, for 
four different words in the Bible ; namely, Sheol a Hehreio 
word, and of course always found in the Old Testament, and 
occurs in 64 instances; in 32 it is rendered hell, and in the oth- 
er 32 it is rendered pit and grave. Hades is a Greek transla- 
tion of Sheoly and always has the same meaning. We have al- 
ready spoken of these two words. The other two words are 
Tartarus and Gehenna, The former Tartarus does not really 
occur at all, but a denominative verb derived from it, which is 
rendered ' cast down to hell.^ It is found only once, in 2 Peter 
ii. 4. Gehenna occurs 12 times, and is uniformly rendered 
kelL I have already spoken of this word in the first division 



29 



of my discourse. My brother applies it to another world; or 
rather the passage under- consideration. His argument was 
intended to have a special bearing upon this parable of the Of- 
fending Hand — yes, this fable, fictitious narration, or allego- 
ry, designed by the Savior to illustrate some important truth. 
The inquiry that presents itself then, is, what was the object 
of Jesus in addressing his disciples thus? We answer — that 
it was to warn his followers of the necessity of casting aside 
every personal habit or gratification, that could prove an ob- 
stacle to their giving themselves up w^holly to the service of 
their Master. This will be learned from the context. 

By the words enter into life, we conceive the Savior to sig- 
nify an entrance into the belief of the gospel. In support of 
this idea I will quote from John vi. 63, where Jesus said on a 
certain occasion, " The coords that I speak unto you, they are 
spirit, and they are Itfc.'^ Again, he exclaimed, John v. 24, 

Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth my ivord, and 
believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall 
not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto 
life:' 

But what does Hell or Gehenna mean, " where the worm 
dieth not and the fire never shall be quenched 

The word Gehenna is derived from two Greek [Hebrew] 
words, which being united make Gee Hinnoni, (Gehenna) the 
valley of Hinnom. Professor Stewart informs us that it is a 
part (the eastern section) of the pleasant wadi, or valley, which 
bounds Jerusalem on the south, " Here, in ancient times, and 
under some of the idolatrous kings, the worship of Molock, 
the horrid idol god of the Ammorites, was practised. To this 
idol children were offered in sacrifice." " It was hollow 
within ; and being heated by fire, children were laid in its 
arms, and were there literally roasted alive." " After these [idol- 
atrous] sacrifices had ceased, the place was desecrated and 
made one of loathing and horror. The pious king Josiah 
caused it to be polluted — that is, he caused to be carried 
there the filth of Jerusalem. It would seem that the custom 
of desecrating this place, thus happily begun, was continued, in 
after ages, down to the period when our Savior was on earth. 
Perpetual fires were kept up, in order to consume the ofi'aJ 



30 



which was deposited there." In time, it canie to be the place 
wh(-re criminals were executed by burning to death. The Jews 
therefore, viewed this Gehenna with great dislike and horror. 
Schiensiier tells us that " every severe punishment, and par- 
ticularly every ignominious kind of death, was called by the 
name of Gthcnna'' — or hell. 

There is no proof that the Savior, or the Jews of his day, 
ever used the word to signify a place of endless wretchedness. 
We should understand the phrase, " where their worm dieth 
not," &c. as indicative of the intensity of the punishments in- 
dicted. Prof. Stuart says, Perpetual fires were kept up [in 
the valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna] in order to consume the 
offal that was deposited there. And as the same o(fal would 
breed worms, (for so all putrifying meat of course does,) hence 
came the expression, where their uwrm dieth not, and the fire 
is not quenched."" 

We therefore understand the words, " cast into hell," or " go 
into hell" figuratively, as becoming involved in calamities and 
woes, in consequence of sinful gratifications. 

Jesus instructed his disciples that it was their duty to put 
away all habits, practices, and inclinations that would interfere 
with duty, and enter into the life and enjoyment of the gospel, 
rather than by neglecting duty, apostatize from their Master, 
and become involved in the dreadful woes which were soon to 
come upon the Jews for their wickedness. 

We are informed by historians that those who apostatized 
were involved in the calamities that soon after overwhelmed 
the Jewish nation. They were cast into Gehenna, into a scene 
of distress, and suffering, and awful horror, such as the world 
has never witnessed in any other instance. But enough — ex- 
cepting in one case, Gehcmna, was never used by any New 
Testament writer beside our Savior ; and it never occurs in 
the Gospel of John, in the Acts and preachings of the Apos- 
tles, nor in all the Epistles of Peter, Paul, John and Jude > 
and yet this is the word, the only word, which our opposers re- 
ly on as the name of their supposedly endless hell, in the orig- 
inal Scriptures ! ! ! I have spoken at greater length upon this 
parable than I at first intended. 

IV. I pass to the fourth proof text. The parabk of th« 
Sheep and Goats — Matt. xxv. 31 — 46. 



31 



This my brother says is nn important passage in iho discus- 
sion. He wishes the hearer to keep in mind certain facta. I 
wish the hearer also to keep in mind certain facts. Remember 
that this is ?i parable . That it was one of several which Jesu?! 
delivered to his disciples in reply to certain questions they 
asked him. 

The question before us is — Does this allegory teach the 
doctrine of endless punishment for any part or portion of the 
human family?" My brother asserts that it does, and has en- 
deavored to prove that it is specially applicable to the future 
world. He says — " We have already seen that the Jews must 
have understood the Savior as speaking of the general judg- 
ment at the end of this world." 

Where, we would ask, has he shown this ? But let this pass. 
It so happens that this parable was spoken not to the Jews, but 
to the Disciples as my brother may learn by consulting Matt, 
xxiv. 3. His proof that the passage describes something yet to 
take place is, that it is to be " When the Son of Man shall 
come in his glory ; which must mean Christ's second appear- 
ing. He quotes four passages which refer to this event, as he 
thinks. As they are not proof texts on the question under dis- 
cussion, I need not notice them farther, than to assert that 
Christ has already made his second advent, which I stand rea- 
dy to prove. I pass therefore hastily over his conclusions 
drawn from those passages; he having assumed the ground, 
that there is to be a day of general judgment; which should first 
be proved, as something yet to be. The last verse of the par- 
able seems to be the important part. " And these shall go 
away into everlasting punishment ; but the righteous into life 
eternal." It is not necessary that I should declare that the 
vvord everlasting does not always signify endless when it occurs 
in the Bible ; this, my brother acknowledges. The true mean- 
ing of the word is to be determined from the connection in 
which it is found. This reward of eternal life and doom of 
everlasting punishment was to be dispensed at the time of the 
coming of the Son of Man. By examining the questions in 
the 3d verse of the xxivth chapter of Matt, it will be found 
that what follows in that chapter, and what is contained in the 
xxvth was spoken in reply to them. 



32 



Tho qiieslions were, When shall these things be ? and what 
shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world ? 

When shall what things be ? Why the things of which he 
liad before been speaking ; the destruction of the Jewish Tem- 
j)le; and the overthrow of that nation; and the end of the 
Jewish age. The phrase rendered end of the world;' does 
not signify the end of the material universe; — it is not Kos- 
mos but Aiori, which signifies age. We nowhere read in the 
New Testament of the end of the material world ; though we 
do read of the " End of the Age.'' 

It is a fact too well known to require proof, that the Jewish 
Temple was destroyed ; that the nation was overthrown in a 
dreadful manner by the Roman Armies, more than seventeen 
centuries ago. At that time the wicked Jews figuratively 
speaking, went away into everlasting punishment; and the 
Christian believers entered into life eternal ; they enjoyed the 
special blessings promised them here ; while those unbelievers, 
the Jews suffered the judgment pronounced upon them. And 
they still suffer it ; they are despised and persecuted in our 
own day. 

My brother having presented these three parables of the Sav- 
ior with the passage in Luke xii. proceeds to quote one pas- 
sage from the Epistles of Paul in support of the affirmative of 
the question. 

Before noticing that, I wish to call your attention to the fact 
that his proofs, have not been accompanied, with that which is 
equivalent to a " Thus saith the Lord." They have been 
drawn mainly from three parables, which if they are to be m- 
terpreted fgurativeli/ in one part should be so in all, and if 
literally in one part they should be so in all. 

5. The fifth passage quoted is 2 Thessalonians i. 7 — 9. 
" And to you which are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord 
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in 
flaming tire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and 
that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ : who shall 
be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of 
the Lord and from the glory of his power." 

My brother says this must refer to a time yet future. He 
urges three objections to the supposition that it may refer to 



33 



the Jewish overthrow. 1st. That the church in Thessalonica 
was composed principally of devout Greeks and heathen, and 
not of Jews. In answer to this objection I will refer my broth- 
er to Acts xvii. 1 — 4, where he will learn that there was a syn- 
agogue of the Jews at Thessalonica, and that some of them 
were converted under Paul's preaching, &lc. 

2d. He objects that they were 1000 or more miles dis- 
tant from Jerusalem. I reply, that proves nothing : for were 
not all the Jews, and Christians, wherever scattered abroad, 
effected by the destruction of that nation ? 

3d. He objects that in the second chapter of the epistle we 
read that there should be a falling away first, and that the man 
of sin should be revealed, the Son of perdition ; and this he 
tells us signifies Papacy, which did not rise until several centu- 
ries afterwards. To this I reply, that the application is assum- 
ed ; — he gives no conclusive reason why this should be said 
to refer to the Romish Church. 

The 6th verse of the chapter tells us who v/ere the persons 
that were to be punished — " Seeing it is a righteous 
thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble 
you.'" No other persons than those who troubled the Thessa- 
lonian believers, had or can have any part or lot in the matter 
of the punishment. It is true that those believers suffered 
much at the hands of their own countrymen — but it is plain 
that the unbelieving Jews at Thessalonica were the instigators 
thereof, as well as the principal persecutors in person. This 
is obvious from Acts xvii. 5 — 9, and 1 'J'hess. ii. 14 — 16, 
2. Thess.i. 10, is as follows: " When he shall come to be glorified 
in his saints, and to be admired by all them that believe (be- 
cause our testimony among you was believed) in that clay. 
This then fixes the time. 

Paul speaks of " the mystery of iniquity as being already at 
work when he wrote. He declares that the events by him 
spoken of should occur when the Lord Jesus should he revealed 
from heaven — lohen he should come; Luke xvii. 30, 31, is to the 
point. Even thus it shall be in the day when the Son of Man 
is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the house- 
top, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take 
5 



34 



it away ; and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return 
back. Similar directions are given in Matt. xxiv. 15 — 18, and 
in Luke xxi. 20 -- 23 ; in all which places the time of tribula- 
tion to Jerusalem is obviously referred to — When he shall 
comer See Matt. x. 23 ; xvi. 27, 28 ; xxiv. 29, 30. 

But enough, — I have shown, I believe, who are the persons 
signified and the time when they were to be punished. I need 
not now pursue the subject further. 

IV. My brother's fourth division in his discourse has refer- 
ence to this question. "Were the Christian Fathers who lived 
in and immediately after the days of the apostles, believers in 
the doctrine of endless punishment 

I need not devote any time to examine this portion of the 
discourse. It is not necessary that I should now produce tes- 
timony from the early Fathers, in proof that some of them ( at 
did not believe in the doctrine of endless punishment; 
among them the pious and learned Origen. If the Scriptures 
teach the doctrine my brother endeavors to maintain, it is not 
important that this latter question should be found in the affirm- 
ative or negative. 

I leave this subject with the prayer that my mind may be led 
into all truth ; and not only I, but all present, yea, the whole 
intelligent creation of God. — Amen. 



DISCUSSION, 

Part I. No. III. 

J.N THE UNIVERSALIST CHURCH, APRIL 4, 1843. 
BY F. YATES. 



In support of the affirmative of the first part of this conjoint 
question, I endeavored to show, on a previous occasion, that 
the teachings of Christ and his apostles were calculated, not 
only to confirm believers in the doctrine of endless punishment, 
but to lead others to regard this as a prominent point in their 
faith. It was shown in my discourse, and admitted by my op- 
ponent, that the doctrine of endless punishment was generally 
believed by Jews and Gentiles in the days of Christ and his 
apostles. It was thought, that, if this prevailing doctrine, 
which its opposers regard as ' ' worse than all other errors put 
together," were not the doctrine of him who came to " bear 
ivitness of the truth,^^ that he would have distinctly opposed it, 
as " injurious to good morals, and destructive to human hap- 
piness." It was affirmed that such opposition could not be 
found, in a single instance. It was further shown, that, in- 
stead of opposing this doctrine, Christ and his apostles used 
such language, when speaking of the punishment of the wicked, 
as was used by believers in endless punishment, and which can- 
not now be consistently interpreted to teach anything short of 
this doctrine. It was further shown, that the churches gathered 



36 

by the apostles, and instructed by them in the doctrines of 
Christianity, were, so far as is known, beUevers in endless 
punishment. 

I. I now come to notice the reply made by my opponent 
to these arguments. — He does not seem " willing to allow, 
that only ' some few, in these latter days,' declare that " the 
Bible does riot teach, what the most pious and learned men of 
all ages of the christian church have believed, concerning end- 
less punishment;" but asserts that " biblical students, * all a- 
long, through these ' 1800 years," have not only ' discovered,' 
but rejoiced in, and published to the world, the truth that all 
mankind will be finally holy and happy." And he thinks he 
" might style" me and my co-workers 'new teachers, since" 
my " denomination cannot trace its existence, as such, much 
over one century." Certainly he will not style us "new 
teachers" in reference to the doctrine of endless punishment, 
for Universalists admit that many of the early Christian Fath- 
ers taught this doctrine. 

But how old is Universalism, pray? In the Modern History 
of Universalism, p. 318, John Murray is styled the ''father of 
Universalism,^' who commenced his public life in 1770. Can 
the child be older than its parent.^ But the system as it is 
now advocated, cannot claim so near a relation to John Mur- 
ray as V child. Not a single doctrine peculiar to Mr. Mur- 
ray's creed can be found in the present system of Universal- 
ism. He believed in the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, 
in original sin, in regeneration, and in endless punishment. He 
believed that the curse of the law was endless death ; that all 
men were justly exposed to it, and that from this Christ came 
to redeem men. He believed salvation to be deliverance from 
deserved punishment."* The present system can trace its or- 
igin no farther than Hosea Ballou of Boston, and finds its true 
date in 1818. So much for his " assertion.'^ 

He admits my first point — that the doctrine of endless pun- 
ishment was generally believed in the time of Christ, and de- 
clares that it had its origin among the heathen. This I deny, 



*See M. H. Smith's Lectures, p. 23-1. 



37 



and call for proof. The law of God first given to man, I re- 
gard as the first anouncement of this doctrine. 

II. He next attempts to answer my second inquiry — Was 
Christ or his apostles, who lived and preached in the midst of 
believers in endless misery, ever known to oppose this doc- 
trine; or were they ever opposed for believing and preaching 
the contrary doctrine? 

I contended, and do still contend, that if this doctrine be not 
of God, Christ and his apostles would have borne a faithful 
testimony against it; that they would at least have been suffi- 
ciently clear on this subject to let their followers know what is 
truth. In my first discourse, I stated, that nowhere, in their 
history, do we learn that they ever raised a note of alarm a- 
gainst the doctrine of endless punishment. This my opponent 
calls '* a bold assertion,^' and asks if it is true. 

In reply, he makes the following quotation from W. M. Fer- 
nald: '* The doctrine of endless punishment is expressly contradic- 
ted by the holy scriptures. The Pharisees, it is well known, be- 
lieved in the endless punishment of human souls. Their doc- 
trine was, that the souls of the wicked, at death, passed imme- 
diately into a state of never-ending torment. Yet our Savior 
(Matt. xvi. 12,) said to his disciples, without any reservation, 
' Beware' of the doctrine of the Pharisees." 

This may be quite satisfactory to those who are in the habit 
of taking every thing on credit, without reading for themselves. 
He has produced a solitary text to prove his " bold assertion" 
that "the doctrine of endless punishment is expressly contradic- 
ted in the holy scriptures!" Now let us examine this text, and 
see if it sustains his point. Let us read the verse which con- 
tains his proof text. "Then understood they how he bade 
them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of 
the Pharisees and of the Sadducees/^ Why did he stop in his 
quotation where there is not so much as a comma ^ Because 
if he had continued to the period it would have destroyed his 
object, for the Sadducees did not believe in future punishment. 
This Universalists admit. Allow me the liberty with this text 
that my opponent has taken, and by leaving out the Pharisees, 



38 



I will prove to you that the Savior warned his diciplcs against 
Universalism. I will take the argument of Mr. Fernald. 

" The doctrine that there is no endless 'punishment is express- 
ly contradicted hij holy s^iptures.'' With reference to this, we 
must consider the acknowledged difficulty of proving a nega- 
tive. The scriptures rather tell us what is true, than labor to 
explode what is not true." The " Sadducees" it is well known 
believed in "no" endless punishment for human souls. Their 
doctrine was, that the wicked, at death, "did not go" into a 
state of never-ending torment. "Yet our Savior (Matt. xvi. 12) 
said to his disciples, without any reservation, ' Beware' of the 
doctrine of the Sadducees! — a very singular circumstance, if 
that one doctrine, which is magnified as the very pillar of mo- 
rality, in our day, was the truth of the Almighty." Thus you 
see the sophistry of his reasoning. 

Again, Mr. Fernald and my opponent tell us that this warn- 
ing was made " ivithout any reservation;" i. e. all the doctrines 
held by the Pharisees were contradicted by our Lord! — I 
presume my opponent will readily admit that the Pharisees be- 
lieved in the existence of God, and the future and endless bliss 
of the saints. And yet he asks: " Why should Jesus caution 
against the doctrine of the Pharisees, so siveepingly, and so un- 
reservedly, if they held at least one of the most important, and 
soul-saving truths ? " ! ! ! 

But our Savior tells us defifiitely, what this doctrine is a- 
gainst which he warned his disciples: " He began to say unto 
his disciples first of all, Beware of the leaven* of the Pharisees, 
which is HYPOCRISY." (Luke xii. 1.) This will be seen also by 
reading Matt, xvi, from which his proof text is taken. The 
controversy on this text must now be at an end. This, I have 
no doubt, my opponent will have the candor to acknowledge. 
As this is the only text that has been produced to prove that the 
Bible "expressly contradicts" the doctrine of endless punish- 
ment, my position, that Christ and his apostles nowhere oppose 
this doctrine, remains unanswered. 

Next he makes a bold assertion, which remains to be prov- 
ed: "Christ and his apostles were not silent on this subject, 

* The Savior used the term leaven in both cases. 



39 



but in consequence of preaching the opposite sentiment, they 
met with trials and afflictions." This he assumes; let him 
jyrove it. 

In answer to my call for a single instance where they were 
opposed for preaching that all mankind will be finally holy and 
happy, he has produced the following passage: " 1 Timothy 
iv. 10. For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, be- 
cause we trust in the living god, who is the Savior of all men, 
especially of those that believe." This is the only text that he 
produced in answer to my call; and this he read without 
comments. 

It was evidently designed to make the impression, that the 
apostles suffered reproach for believing or preaching that all 
men will be saved in a future state. But is there any thing 
like this in the text? Let us see. "We both labor and suf- 
fer reproach." For what reason? '^'because we trust in the 
LIVING GOD." The phrase liviiig God," is applied in scrip- 
ture to the true God, to distinguish him from the dead gods of 
the heathen." 1 Thess. i. 9. "And how ye turned to God 
from idols, to serve the living and true God.^^ It was for this 
they suffered reproach, while laboring among the worshippers 
of idols. It is added: "Who is the Savior of all men, espec- 
ially of those that believe.^^ He is the Savior of all men, inas- 
much as he has provided salvation for all, and has invited all 
to " come" and " be saved.^^ But especially is he the Savior 
of those that believe. Universalism asserts that all men will be 
finally holy and happy ; but the text teaches no such doctrine. 
It asserts a fact in the present tense. 

Thus far, my opponent has failed to produce a single text 
in which the doctrine of endless punishment is distinctly oppos- 
ed in the Bible. I v.,v 

I now renew my call for a single instance from the whole 
New Testament, in which Christ or his apostles opposed the 
doctrine of endless punishment, or were opposed by others for 
preaching the contrary doctrine — only one. This he cannot 
produce. 

III. I come now to review his reply to my third inquiry: 
" ' Did Christ and his apostles use such language in their dis- 



40 



courses, and writings as was used by believers in endless 
punishment, in reference to that subject." 

In reply to my observations on this point, he says that 
" an alHrmativc answer to this question appears to be assumed." 
After I had given extracts from Josephus, containing the lan- 
guage employed by the Jews in reference to endless punishment, 
and showing that they believed in a general judgment at the 
end of this world, my opponent starts up and inquires, *' where, 
we would ask, has he shown this ?" When he made this in- 
quiry he had before him in my manuscript, extracts from Jose- 
phus, containing the following passage : "At whose judgment 
seat, where all men, and angels, and demons shall stand, they 
will send forth one voice, and say, just is thy judgment; the 
rejoinder to which will bring a just sentence upon both parties, 
by giving justly to those who have done well, an everlasting 
fruition ; but alloting to the lovers of wicked works eternal 
punishment. To these belong the unquenchable fire, and that 
without end, and a certain fiery worm, never dying." I will 
now leave our hearers to judge of the pertinency of his ques- 
tion. 

It was proved in my discourse that Jesus Christ and his apos- 
tles used the same language when speaking of the punishment 
of the wicked, as was employed by believers in endless punish- 
ment to express that doctrine. This my opponent does not 
pretend to deny. Nay, he admits it! After assuming that my 
proof texts are parables, he remarks, " the parables of Christ, 
were drawn chiefly, from the manners, customs, occupations, 
and views of the Jews. Sometimes he made them to conform 
to the religious prejudices and superstitions of the Israelites, yet 
without endorsing their superstitions as truth. The parable of 
the Rich Man and Lazarus is of this description." 

Here then, is an admission of all I contend for, Jesus Christ 
made his mode of teaching to conform to the "views of the 
Jews ;" but that he could do this without endorsing their senti- 
ments, I do not admit. On this principle, how can it be proved 
that Jesus taught that there is an endless heaven? he "con- 
forms to the religious prejudices and superstitions of the Isra- 
elites" in reference to this subject. 

On this point I beg leave to introduce an extract from a Ser- 



41 



mon of Rev. Dr. Fisk, late President of the Wesleyan Uni- 
versity : 

"The Jews held the endless punishment of the wicked. 
This may be abundantly proved from the rabbinical writings, 
and from the targums. And if this were an error of that peo- 
ple, which from the corruptions of the church, they had run 
into, why did not our Lord and his apostles plainly point out 
their error, as they did the other errors which had been intro- 
duced? why did they use the very terms which the Jews used, 
to express the eternal torments of the wicked, and that too, 
when speaking of that very subject, and yet not explain their 
meaning? No man in his senses, I think, can deny, that by 
this course they either designedly left them in the dark upon 
this subject, yea, designedly confirmed them in their error, or 
else they meant to give their authority to this doctrine. * * * 
If our Lord or his apostles did not intend to confirm the Jews 
in their error, then they meant to stamp with their authority 
the doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked. I see 
no means of avoiding this conclusion; and the argument must 
certainly have great weight. It will outweigh a thousand ver- 
bal criticisms upon Greek and Hebrew terms. It has certainly 
been well said, that scripture is to be taken in that sense in 
which the common people who heard it at first took it. If so, 
then we are to understand those passages in the New Tasta- 
ment in the manner that the Jews must necessarily have un- 
derstood them. We have already seen that these terms were 
understood by the Jews as applying to the endless punishment 
of the impenitent. This gives the doctrine of the Jews addi- 
tional weight, while it leads to a clue, which, beyond the pow- 
er of successful contradiction, will determine that our Lord 
and his apostles held the same doctrine, and thus they both 
unite to corroborate it. And this argument gathers more 
strength from the consideration, that the advocates of the two 
systems, Jewish and Christian, were at variance. When a 
new system is introduced to take the place of an old one ; in all 
those points of any importance in which the two disagree, there 
will be a controversy, as was the case in many instances be- 
tween Christ and the Jews, the apostles and their countrymen. 
6 



42 



But there was no controversy between them on the subject of 
the duiation of punislimcnt. Also, such opposing advocates 
for dilFerent systems will be careful not to use terms that es- 
tablish what they conceive to be the errors of their opponents; 
but not only was no such caution used by our Lord and his a- 
postles, but they frequently and commonly used the same terms 
that the Jews used when speaking on the subject of future pun- 
ishment, and that without any explanation, or even a hint, that 
they meant to be understood differently from the current opin- 
ion; — a strong jivGof thai ihey used ihe current terms on this 
subject according to their current meaning. And the other con- 
sideration, that in no other case have they given intimations 
that such a doctrine which v/as then prevailing was false, is 
sufficient, I think, to establish the point, that Jesus Christ and 
his apostles held the punishment of the wicked the same as the 
Jews." 

This is the ground on which I challenge my opponent. The 
object of the argument, as first presented, was to prove that 
Christ and his apostles used the same language employed by 
the Jews, in reference to endless punishment, and that without 
the least intimation that they held a contrary doctrine. My 
opponent allows that they used the phraseology of the Jews in 
reference to this subject, but makes no attempt to reconcile 
their conduct in this respect, with the doctrine, that all man- 
kind will be finally holy and happy. He says " they were not 
silent on this subject," but he has failed to produce a single in- 
stance in which they bore testimony against the doctrine of 
endless punishment, while I have produced several instances 
where they employ the strongest terms used by the advocates 
of this doctrine, and am prepared to present as many more. I 
challenge my opponent to produce a single term or phrase em- 
ployed by the Jews, to express endless punishment, stronger 
than those used by Jesus Christ and his apostles. 

The efforts of my opponent to show that my proof texts do 
not teach this doctrine, go just as far to prove that the Jews did 
not believe and teach the doctrine of endless punishment, as 
they do that our Lord and" his apostles were not of this faith! 
But why has not my opponent met my argument as it was pre- 



43 



sentcd ? The object of these texts was to prove that Christ and 
his apostles must have been understood as teaching the doc- 
trine of endless punishment, inasmuch as they used the same 
terms employed to express this then prevailing doctrine. This 
argument he has not met; consequently, I am under no obli- 
gation to notice his reply to my proof texts. 

But lest he should take advantage of my silence on his expla- 
nation of these scriptures, I v/ill give it a passing notice. 

After naming the four proof texts produced by me to show 
that Christ used the language of the Jews in reference to end- 
less punishment, he asks, " now what think you my friends, 
when we declare unto you that three of these are Parables.''^ 

But I ask, what evidence has he produced to prove his as- 
sertion that three of my proof texts are Parables ? He made 
no attempt to prove it. It is a bold and unwarrantable assertion, 
made with as much confidence as though the lip of truth had 
declared it. " Now what think you my friends, when we de- 
clare unto you" that he cannot prove from the texts themselves, 
or from the whole book of God that they are parables. And 
yet, this unwarrantable assumption forms the basis of all his re- 
marks on these texts! !! Is this candidl 

He remarks that ' ' all the doctrine and moral truths and prin- 
ciples of the Gospel are revealed by the Savior in plain, distinct 
and literal language, without figure or parable." Now let us 
bring this principle laid down by my opponent to the texts which 
he calls parables. They are the account of the Rich Man and 
Lazarus, Luke xvi. 22 — 26 — the Offending Hand, and danger 
of hell fire, Mark ix. 43, 44, and the concluding portion of 
Matt. 25th chapter where it speaks of the Son of Man coming 
in his glory, with all the holy angels, and that the wicked shall 
go into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into life 
eternal. Now according to the above principle, ail this teach- 
ing of the Savior either contains no doctrinal or moral truth, or 
principle of the gospel, — or it is plain, literal language, and 
no parable. He can take which horn of the dilemma he 
chooses. 

But now for the texts. My first proof text is Luke xvi. 22, 
26, which contains the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 



44 



given by our Savior. This my opponent culls a jMrablc. 
Where is the proof? But suppose it be a parable? What 
then? Dr. Clarke says in respect to this passage, that it "is 
cither 3. parable or real hislorij. If it be a })arable, it is what 
may be: if it be a history, it is what has been. Either a man 
may live as is here described, and goto perdition when he dies; 
or, some have lived in this way, and are now suffering the tor- 
ments of an eternal fire. The account is equally instructive in 
whichsoever of these lights it is viewed. 

But I make the following objections to this being a parable. 

1. It is not introduced as such. The Savior commences 
with saying, " There was a certain rich man," Slc. He gives 
all the facts as having actually taken place. But my oppo- 
nent says there is no such thing. Who shall we believe, Mr. 
Francis, or the Savior? 

2. There is no general feature of this account that is nec- 
essarily figurative. The language is such as any man would 
employ in giving a plain narration of facts. 

3. It is unlike all other parables. The parables of our 
Savior are usually figures and circumstances with which the 
people were familiar — such as the parable of ' ' the tares and 
the wheaV — *' The ten virgins'' ' — " The pearV — '* The mus- 
tard seed,^' &c. designed to illustrate high and important truths. 
But if this be a parable, it is a " fictitious narration" of some- 
thing — no one knows what. 

Until my opponent brings a " thus saith the Lord'^ to prove 
his assertion that this is a parable, this fearful passage of holy 
writ stands out in bold relief, as conclusive evidence of the 
doctrine I advocate. "The Rich man died, and in hell he 
lifted up his eyes, being in torments." So says Jesus Christ, 
and who will take the responsibility to contradict him ? 

He " would like to know what right Lazarus had" in Abra- 
ham's bosom ? And ' ' he wishes to know what great crime the 
rich man had committed, that should doom him" to the tor- 
ments of hell. I will refer him to Jesus Christ on this subject. 
He may stand up and demand a reason of the Savior for his 
conduct towards these individuals. His complaint about their 
final destiny may pass to this audience for all it is worth. 



45 



In this passage is found language which the Jews used when 
speaking of endless punishment, employed by the Savior. This 
my opponent does not deny, but asks, "What if Christ did use 
similar language for the purpose of illustrating and setting 
forth in a forcible manner to the understanding of his hearers, 
some great truth, he wished to impress upon their minds." I 
call on him to point out a great truth that is illustrated and 
set forth in a forcible manner, in these passages. What great 
truth is so much as named, or even alluded to, if he rejects a 
literal understanding of it? " Does Christ apply this passage" 
to some great truth, in this " state of existence.^ This is as- 
sumed. Our brother does not show us how Christ does this. 
I call for proof upon this point." 

My next proof text is Luke xii. 4, 5. "And I say unto you, my 
friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, 
have no more that they con do. But I will forewarn you whom 
ye shall fear: fear him which after he hath killed, hath power 
to cast into hell; yea I say unto you, fear him." In reply to 
this text, my opponent makes some very good remarks on the 
duty of fearing God, rather than man, and concludes " It is 
enough." He " believes in the infinite power of God as much 
as any one." Does he believe that God has power to punish 
the soul in hell after the body is dead, if there is no such 
place.'' He spares his criticisms on the word here rendered 
hell for the next passages, which he is pleased to call "the 
parable of the offending hand;" probably thinking he might 
bring them in there with more plausibility. But I am disposed to 
test his criticisms on this word by this passage. The Greek word 
that is here translated hell is Gehenna ; which my brother says 
is derived from two Greek words, which being united make Gee 
Hinnom." My brother has made a slight mistake here, — 
Ge Hinnom are Hebrew words. He thinks that because the 
word originally signified the valley of Hinnom, a place near 
Jerusalem, it cannot be used to mean a place of punishment in 
another world! But does he contend for the original meaning 
of Gehenna in every instance where it is used by the Savior? 
Let us see. Speaking of the calamities of the Jews, he says, 
*' They were cast into Gehenna — into a scene of distress and 



I 



46 



sn[f't:rlii;j^, and awful horror.'" I presume my opponent will not 
contend for a moment, that Gehenna in the text under conside- 
ration means leterally the valley of Hinnom. Now we will see 
if his other application of the term will work, "Fear him, 
which after he hath kitled, hath power to involve you in the ca- 
lamities which shall come upon the Jews at the destruction of 
Jerusalem"!! That don't do. The truth is, the punishment 
threatened in the text must relate to the other world, — it is to 
be inflicted "after he hath killed the body." — In the 
text which he calls "the parable of the offending hand," the 
same word occurs, and if it is applied to the future world in 
one case, it is in the other. It reads as follows: Mark ix. 43, 
44. " And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for 
thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into 
hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their 
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." 

This passage my opponent calls a "/a6/e," a '^fictitious nar- 
rationV Let me ask our hearers, what confidence they can 
place in the teachings of those who can thus trifle with the sol- 
emn word of Almighty God ? — My opponent thinks I have fal- 
len into a slight mistake, because I introduced an extract from 
Josephus' discourse on Hades in connection with this text, for 
the word in this text is Gehenna and not Hades. I think he 
must have seen, from the words which were underscored in that 
extract, that it was not made in reference to the word hell, but 
in reference to the undying worm, and the unquenchable fire. 
Josephus says, in the extract referred to, while speaking of the 
doom of the wicked after the general judgment, " to these be- 
long ihQ unquenchable fire, and that without end, and a certain fi- 
ery worm, never dying. The Savior in the text under considera- 
tion, speaks of going into Gehenna, into the fire that never shall 
be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched.^'' — My object was to prove that Jesus Christ used 
the same language, while speaking of the punishment of the 
wicked, as did the Jews to express endless punishment. This 
is proved in the above passages. Again, I ask, with what 
consistency or propriety, if he did not allow the doctrine? 
Let my opponent meet this question fairly. 



47 



But to return. It is clearly proved iVom the text in Luke, 
that liell ns n place of punishment, is beyond this life ; ;uul the 
text in Mark as clearly proves that the punishment of hell can 
have no end. So, at least, must the Jews have understood the 
Savior, Pily opponent says, " We should understand the 
phrase, ' where their worm dieth not,' &.c. as indicative of the 
intensity of the punishment inflicted." To this I have no ob- 
jections. 

I cannot consent to leave this part of my subject without no- 
ticing the closing paragraph of my opponent concerning Ge- 
henna. Here it is. " Excepting in one case, Gtlimna was 
never used by any New Testament writer besides the Savior ; 
and it never occurs in the gospel of John, in the acts and pro- 
ceedings of the apostles, nor in all tiie epistles of Peter, Paul, 
John and Jude ! and yet this is the word, the only word, which 
our opposers rely on as the name of their supposed endless 
hell, in the original scriptures ! ! !" 

What, we ask, does all this amount to ? No speaker or wri- 
ter in scripture, uses the term GfJienna but Jesus Christ and 
St. James ! yet the great mass of biblical scholars have had the 
credulity to rely upon it as the name of hell, when they have 
no higher authority ! ! ! He tells us in another place, that 
" Gehenna occurs 12 times, and is uniformly rendered hcliy 
How far does this go towards proving that there is no place of 
punishment beyond this life ? Where did he find authority for 
saying that Gehenna is the only word we rely upon as the name 
of hell ? But suppose there is no other term that designates a place 
of punishment ? How many words does he rely upon as the proper 
name of heaven in the original scriptures ? Can he mention one 
term that oriqlnally signified a place of endless happiness X If 
it can be proved that there is no hell, because there is no word 
used in the scriptures that originally signified endless punish- 
ment, the same argument will prove that there is no heaven of 
bliss, for the word used to signify this place originally meant 
nothing more than the atmosphere that belts the earth. 

I am prepared to prove that Gehenna had come into com- 
mon use before our Savior's advent, to express endless punish- 
ment, and they (the Jews) must have understood him as using 
it in the same sense. 



48 



I come now to liis remarks on Malt. xxv. 31 — 40. This he 
calls " tlic parable of tlic sheep and goats." By what authority 
does he call this the parable of the sheep and goats ? Sim- 
ply this : " And before him (the son of man) shall be gathered 
nil natlon^i, and he shall separate thtm (the gathered nations) 
one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the 
goats." As well might we call the 24th chapter of Matthew 
" the parable of thunder and lightning," for '* as the lightning 
cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so 
shall also the coming of the son of man be." 

If a passage of scripture happens to contain a figurative al- 
lusion, must the whole passage therefore become a parable 1 
With this rule, the whole New Testament might be turned in- 
to parables. The only possible reason why this portion of scrip- 
ture can be called a parable is, the Savior makes one allusion 
to the shepherd and his flock. This whole passage (which he as- 
sumes is a parable)is applied by my opponent to the "Destruction 
of Jerusalem, and the overthrow of the Jewish nation." This 
application was anticipated, and a list of seven objections urg- 
ed against it ; but these objections he did not see fit to notice. 
Before he can make such an application with the hast shoio of 
plausibility, he must prove that it is a parable. This, I appre- 
hend, he will find no easy task. 

My opponent prays that he may be guided into truth. This 
is my prayer also. I now invite him to a careful, a candid and 
prayerful examination of this portion of God's word. 

Allow me to ask, what evidence he has that the Savior meant 
to be understood figuratively? By what rule of interpretation, 
either of scripture or of language in general, does he make 
this passage figurative ? It is reasonable he should tell us. 

I regard this passage as an application of the two parables 
which precede it. In the parable of the ten virgins reference 
is had to the coming of Christ to receive his bride — the church. 
Then will it be said, " the marriage of the Lamb is come, and 
Ms bride hath made herself ready.'' In the parable of the tal- 
ents the same scene or event is brought to view again in anoth- 
er form. The return of the master, refers to the coming of 



49 



the judge to reckon with his servants. In both of these para- 
bles the coming of a particular personage is mentioned at which 
time there is a gathering and a separation. After closing these 
parables, he proceeds to make an application of them in plain, 
literal language, as I believe, — When the Son of Man shall 
come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall 
he sit upon the throne of his glory ; and before him shall be 
gathered all nations ; and he shall separate them." One class 
he pronounces " Messed,'^ and invites them to a kingdom pre- 
pared for them from the foundation of the world ; — while the 
other class are pronounced " cursed^^ and told to depart into 
everlasting punishment. All this my opponent says took place 
at the destruction of Jerusalem, — I say it is a description of 
a day of general judgment at the end of the world. Now I 
ask, which looks the most consistent with the language here 
used ? Let the candid answer. 

I suppose it will be admitted on all hands, that this passage 
either refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, or it is a descrip- 
tion of a day of general judgment yet future. If I can prove 
that it cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, and was 
not fulfilled in that event, it will then be established that Jesus 
Christ is to make his personal appearance, to gather all the na- 
tions of the dead and living, and pass the final sentence, — re- 
ceiving some to everlasting life, and dooming others to everlast- 
ing punishment. And my point will be gained, that the scrip- 
tures teach that a part of the human family will suffer endless 
punishment. 

I shall now repeat some of my objections to applying this 
text to the destruction of Jerusalem, and hope my opponent 
will condescend to notice them. 

1. These events are to take place " when the Son of Man 
shall come in his glory. I ask, hoio did Jesus Christ come in 
his glory at the destruction of Jerusalem, any more than he 
did at the fall ofJBabylon, or Sodom, or in any other greatjca- 
1 amity ? Was the" coming 'of Titus to destroy Jerusalem, the 
coming of Christ in his glory 1 The apostle Paul speaks of 
being glorified together icith Christ y'' but if his glory consis- 
7 



50 



ted in tlie hloody conquests of Home over the Jewish nation, 
could it be very desirable, by a pure minded apostle to share in 
that glory ? 

2. All the lioly angels^' are to come at this time. How 
was this fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem ? The holi/ 
angels cannot mean the Roman armies, for they are nowhere 
called holy. They were bloody, savage heathen, called by our 
Savior the " abomination of desolation hence, they could not 
be the holy angels spoken of in the text. Again, it is said he 
shall come with all the holy angels; if the Roman soldiers are 
meant, then all the Roman soldiers must have been at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem which was not the fact. Neither could 
it mean the ministers of the Gospel, and other Christians, for 
they did not " come'' to Jerusalem at that time, but those who 
were near the city all fled before the fearful blow was struck. 
I ask again, how did Christ come ''with all his holy angels'"^ 
at that time ? 

3. ''All nations'' are to be " gathered before him" at that 
time. Was this fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem ? It 
could not be the Jews, for they were not " all nations" but 
only one nation, neither were they all "gathered" at that time 
before the Son of Man, but those who ^^?e?'c present, were either 
slain, or carried into captivity. Neither can the Roman armies, 
though composed of individuals from many nations, be said 
to be " all nations." To assert this, would be giving his op- 
ponent a liberty with the word allj which might be used to his 
disadvantage before the close of this discussion. 

4. The gathered nations are to be " separated" at the com- 
ing of the Son of Man mentioned in the text, one part receiv- 
ing a kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world, and 
the other portion being driven " into everlasting f re prepared 
for the devil and his angels" How was this fulfilled at the 
destruction of Jerusalem? My opponent says, At that time 
the wicked Jews, figuratively speaking, went away into ever- 
lasting punishment, and the christian believers into life eternal " 
I would ask if this application is satisfactory to this audience T 
How did the Jews go into everlasting punishment at that time ? 



51 



I will tell you. Hundreds of thousands of them, by sword, by 
suicide, by ramine, and various other ways, during the siege of 
the city, and wars in other places, passed through the gates of 
death, and, according to the theory of my opponent, went im- 
mediately to the joys of heaven ; while the christian believers, 
who, he says, entered into eternal life at that time, were left on 
earth, in a condition of great suffering, and more wretched 
than before the destruction. For more than two hundred years 
after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Romans followed the 
christians with persecutions unparalleled^ for severity and cru- 
elty in the history of the church. And|this my opponent calls 
enjoying the special blessings promised them here"! ! ! Ac- 
cording to this, Paul received the " crown'' that was laid up 
for him, to be given in that day,'' and not to him only, but 
to all them that loved Christ's appearing at the destruction of 
Jerusalem. It was then that those who did not ''fall" had 
" an entrance administered|unto them abundantly, into the ev- 
erlasting kingdom," and the "people of God" entered into 
*' the rest that remained for them !" How absurd ! 

Having now shown conclusively that this passage cannot re- 
fer to the destruction of Jerusalem, it follows that it must have 
its fulfilment in the future state. Now, taking the principle 
laid down by ray opponent, that " the true meaning of the 
word [everlasting] is to be determined by the connection in 
which it is used, we are prepared to understand the closing 
verse of the passage under consideration : " Those [the wick- 
ed] shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righ- 
teous into life eternal." As this text has its fufilment in the 
future state, everlasting must be taken into its unlimited 
sense. My point is therefore proved. 

My fifth and last proof text is 2 Thess. i. 7 — 9. This he 
also applies to the destruction of Jerusalem. What a conve- 
nient hobby the destruction of that city makes for a great mul- 
titude of passages, which, if literally understood, would entire- 
ly destroy the whole theory of Universalism. Such is the text 
under consideration. There is not |a word said about this e- 
vent in plain language in either of the epistles addressed to the 



52 



Thessalonians. He cannot furnish the name of a single bib- 
lical student of any note who applies this text to that event ! 
But I must notice his attempt to prove his application of this 
text. He thinks Luke xvii. 30, 31, is to the point. But be- 
fore he can make this appear, he must prove, 1. That the text 
in Luke relates to the destruction of Jerusalem, and 2. That 
the phrase "that day" in both texts, refer to the same period. 
He next quotes Matt. xvi. 27, 28. The first verse reads, " For 
the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his 
angels, and then shall he reward every man according to his 
works." This text cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, for the reasons that Matt. xxv. 31 — 46, cannot refer to 
that event, which have been given. Once more, I will 
here add — Christ did not at that time " reward every man 
according to his works" in any sense. But the next verse he 
regards as his strong hold. "Verily I say unto you, there be 
some standing here which shall not taste of death, till ihey see 
the son of man coming in his JcingdomJ' But did Christ co?ne 
in his kingdom at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans? 
If so, then his kingdom is " of this world," and then did his 
servants Jight ! which plainly contradicts his own doctrine. 
(John xviii. 31.) Let my opponent get rid of this conclusion, 
if he can. Again, my opponent remarked, (extempore) that 
" this is plain, literal language, and no parable. If it is, it 
cannot certainly refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, for 
there is nothing of the kind in the text, funless the coming of 
the son of man in his kingdom is equivalent to the coming of 
Titus with the Roman army. The parallel text in Mark reads, 
" there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste 
of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come^ivith 
power^ Turn to Luke xxiv. 49, where, after his resurrection, 
he tells his apostles, " behold, I send the promise of my Fath- 
er upon you : but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye he 
endued with power frorn on high'' Now read the 2d chap, of 
the Acts, and you will find this fulfilled in a wonderful manner. 
Then the kingdom of God, which had already come, (for 
Christ said in his day " the kingdom of God has come upon 



53 



you") came with still greater power.'' The declaration of 
the Savior, " there be some standing here that shall not taste 
of death till they see the kingdom of God come with power," 
was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, in the baptism of the dis- 
ciples with the Holy Ghost, and the conversion of 3000 who 
scattered abroad, preaching Christ and the resurrection. How 
much more this looks like the kingdom of God than the bloody 
wars of the Jews and Romans ! 

My opponent " stands prepared to prove that Christ made 
his second advent at the destruction of Jerusalem." If he 
will undertake this task, I will spend an additional evening 
with him on this point. 

I now close my arguments on the first part of this question, 
unless it should be thought best to prolong the discussion on 
this point. 

I consider that it is clearly sustained that Christ and his apos- 
tles taught the doctrine of endless punishment. 

Arguments have been, and are noio presented before this 
audience in support of this doctrine ; which bare assertion, 
and appeals to human sympathies, will be unable to move. 

The word of God standeth sure." " He that believeth, shall be 
saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned.'^ So saith 
the " living and true Witness." 



DISCUSSION, 

Part I. No. IV. 
REJOINDER. 

IN THE UNIVERSALIST CHURCH, APRIL 4, 1843. 
BY E. FRANCIS. 



" Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether 
they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into 
the world." 1 john, iv. 1. 

This exhortation of the beloved disciple, John, has seemed 
to me appropriate, as a motto, in replying to the discourse to 
which you have listened this evening. 

It is, and I trust it may ever be, my prayer, that I may be 
enabled to " try the spirits whether they are of God," by the 
true spirit of my master — Jesus Christ. 

I cannot but express my regret, that my brother has felt it 
to be his duty to make use of some language that he has on 
this occasion. The Prince of Peace, " when he was reviled, 
reviled not again." God grant, that his servant now, may thus 
aim to do ! 

The introductory remarks of my brother, I need not notice, 
as they give merely the outline of his former discourse. I pro- 
ceed directly to the first division of his second discourse in 
proof of the affirmative of the question ; which is indeed, simp- 



55 



ly a reply to my rejoinder. Duty requires me to follow, as 
well as I am able, in the course he has marked out. 

I. In the former discourse, my brother asserted that " some 
few in these latter days," had risen up and taught a sentiment 
which had never been taught before ; this was the idaa, though 
not the precise words. That argument — assertion, we 
should call it, met with an opposite assertion ; believing that 
one assertion was as good as another. 1 also alluded to the 
brief existence of the denomination to which my brother be- 
longs. To this allusion he replies tliat I " will not style them 
new teachers in reference to the doctrine of endless punish- 
ment." Certainly not — this sentiment, as I before said, is 
of heathen origin, and was currently entertained more than 
2000 years ago. I alluded to the length of time since Ms de- 
nomination had been established, as such, to meet the argu- 
ment from the brief existence of my own, as a distinctive 
sect. 

My brother " will not style us ' new teachers,^ in reference 
to the doctrine of the restitution of all things, which God hath 
spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world 
began." (Acts iii. 21.) He says, " Universalists admit that 
many of the early Christian Fathers taught this doctrine" of 
endless punishment. In reply to this I remark, that I suppose 
he will allow that the public advocates of our faith, are as well 
acquainted with what we admit, as one not of our denomina- 
tion ; and for myself, I never was aware of this fact before ; 
nay, but the contrary is the truth ! If by ' the early Christian 
Fathers,' is understood those who lived and taught, and wrote 
during the first two centuries of the christian era, we confess 
ourselves unable to discover this doctrine of endless punish- 
ment, as contained in their writings. But suppose that they 
did teach this, does it prove that the scriptures do ? 

The first christian writer that is known to have asserted 
the equal duration of happiness and misery, was Tertullian, 
about the commencement of the third century. 

My brother has professed to tell us how old Universalism is ; 
and quotes, as he says, from the *' Modern History of Univer- 
salism," page 318, to show that the beloved John Murray is 



56 



styled the Father of Universalism." He asks, " can the child 
be older than its parent ?" 

Though off from the question under discussion, " is the 
doctrine of endless punithment taught in the scriptures V I 
must beg leave to notice these statements here. 

I wish to quote the whole paragraph alluded to in the histo- 
ry. After noticing the doctrine as it existed before and at 
the time of Father Murray's arrival in this country, Br. Whit- 
temore says, These are the traces of Universalism as it ex- 
isted in the United States previously to, and at the time of Mr. 
Murray's arrival. But this doctrine can be said to have been then 
scarcely known ; and as his labors were the principal cause of 
exciting public attention to the subject, and of establishing so- 
cieties of that faith in different parts of the country, particu- 
larly in our populous cities and towns, he is justly considered 
the Father of Universalism in America." 

I submit it to the candid whether the extract presented by 
my brother that Murray was " the father of Universalism," 
without noticing the connection of those four words ; particu- 
larly the two words that follow them in America," which 
like them are printed in capital letters, is becoming a fair and 
honest disputant; whose aim is Truth. I have the volume 
with me, which any one may examine who wishes to satisfy 
himself that I have quoted correctly. 

My brother says, that " not a single doctjHne peculiar to Mr. 
Murray's creed can be found in the present system of Univer- 
salism." Does my brother claim him as a Methodist? He 
was one in the early part of his life ; but then he became con- 
verted under the labors of James Relly of London, previous to 
his arrival in this country in 1770. But what is the distin- 
guishing sentiment of Universalism, now ? what was it in the 
days of Murray 1 What idea is commonly affixed to the name ? 
Is it not that Universalists believe, and teach *' the doctrine of 
the final holiness and happiness of all mankind?" I need not 
notice this matter further, nor speak of the unjust, because un- 
true, declaration, that Universalism " finds its true date in 
1818." My master directs to pray for those who despitefully 
use us : Father, forgive than /" 



57 



My brother denies my position that the doctrine of endless 
punishment is of heathen origin, and calls for proof. I thought 
I presented a little proof in my former discourse, but he has 
not deemed it worthy of notice. He says, " The law of God first 
given to man, I regard as the first announcement of this doc- 
trine." Is it not a little singular that my brother should call 
upon me to present proof of the origin of his sentiment of end- 
less punishment, which he regards as taught in " 'J'he law of 
God first given to man," without so much as producing one tes- 
timony from the first written law of God, in proof of the cor- 
rectness of his opinion 1 Had he produced one thus saith 
the Lord," from the Old Testament, it would have settled the 
matter at once, and I might well have been defied to produce 
the contrary. But T will endeavor to sustain my position. — 
" Jahn says, that the Pharisees ' taught that the spirits of the 
wicked were tormented with everlasting punishments.' (Bib. 
Archaeology.) Prideaux, however, is more distinct than Jahn, 
in stating this as their opinion. Of the wicked, they believed, 
that their souls, as soon as separated from the bodies, were 
transmitted into a state of everlasting wo, there to suffer the 
punishment of thdr sins to all eternity.^ (Vol. 3. p. 46.) 

From whence did the Pharisees obtain this doctrine ? I an- 
swer, that this sect undoubtedly found it among the Jews, 
when it sprang up among them. But whence did the Jews ob- 
tain it ? not from the Old Testament ; for the Old Testament 
may be searched from end to end, and in vain, to find such 
doctrine. What then ? Dr. Geo. Campbell shall tell us in his 
own language. 

^' But the opinions, says he, neither of the Hebrews nor of 
the heathens, remained invariably the same. And from the 
time of the captivity, more escpecially, from the time of the 
subjection of the Jews, first to the Macedonian empire, and af- 
terward to the Roman ; as they had a closer intercourse with 
pagans, they insensibly imhihed many of their sentiments, par- 
ticularly on those subjects whereon the law was silent, and 
wherein, by consequence, they considered themselves as at 
greater freedom. On this subject of a future state, we find a 
considerable difference in the popular opinion of the Jews, in 
8 



58 



our Saviot '3 time, tVom those which prevailed in the days of 
the ancient i)r(){)h('(s. As hotli (ji eeks and Romans had adopt- 
ed the notion, that tlie ghosts of the departed were susceptible, 
both of enjoyment, and of sulfering; tliey were led to suppose 
a sort of retribution in that state, for the merit or demerit in 
the present. The Jews did not indeed adopt the pagan fables 
on this subject, nor did they express themselves, entirely, in 
the same manner; bid the general Irain of ihinking in both, came 
p-etty much to coincide.'' (Dis. 6, Part 2, Sec. 19.) 

We wish it to be carefully observed, that this testimony of 
Dr. Campbell, whom I doubt not my brother will acknowledge 
is some little authority, tells us that the Jews learned opinions 
of the heathen, on those subjects about which their law pre- 
served silence. " Their law, as we have seen, preserves 
the most profound silence in regard to endless misery; 
while the heathen did believe, as we have also seen, in endless 
misery. What more probable, then, that the Jews should im- 
bibe the heathen notions on this subject, especially during the 
Babylonian captivity, in which they came in contact with pa- 
gans for seventy years? Indeed, Campbell says, that they 
were led to suppose a retribution in another world for the sins 
of this; and that the trc^in of thinking, on this point, both by 
Jews and pagans, came pretty much to coincide. It was from 
the pagans, then, that the Jews learned the doctrine of endless 
misery. And when the Pharisees sprang up, they foimd this 
doctrine among the Jews, and they adopted it."* 

II. My brother's second division, has reference to the same 
subject presented in the second position of his first discourse ; 
viz. 1st. That Christ and his apostles, " nowhere in their his- 
tory ever raised a note of alarm against the doctrine of endless 
punishment." He speaks of me as having produced a solitary 
text to meet this assertion of his. Did he ask for more than 
one.^ He said so far as he could learn, 'Hhey nowhere in 
their history ever raised a single note of alarm." Owe text 
then was as good as ffty to meet his statement. 

He seems to think I used craft in that when I quoted from 
Matt. xvi. 12, I left off the words "and of the Sadducees." 
He asks, " Why did he stop in his quotation" ? &c. I did not 



* G. W. Montgomery. 



59 



deem it necessary to bring the Sadducees into the argument at 
all, because they were believers in the doctrine of annihilation. 
" Beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Saddu- 
cees,*^ is what he would have presented. I did not suppose 
that my brother would have been disposed to assert that the 
Sadducees were Universalists; because, were he to do thus, he 
would have contradicted his former declaration, that " some 
few in these latter daijs had called in question the doctrine of 
endless punishment;" that they were " new teachers." He 
attempts to refute my argument upon his main position, by an 
alteration in the phraseology of the quotation I made from W. 
M. Fernald. That quotation was made in consequence of his 
having quoted a sentence in its connection himself. By leav- 
ing out the Pharisees, (he says) " I will prove to you that the 
Savior warned his disciples against Universalism.'''' Well, 
then, Universalism is some older, according to his own admis- 
sion, than John Murray, or Hosea Bailou! But, my friends, 
the Sadducees were not Universalists, Far from it. They de- 
nied the doctrine of the future life altogether; not only future 
punishment but future happiness also. See Matt. xxii. 23; 
Mark xii. 18; Luke xx. 27. 

This single fact, that Christ and his apostles taught the res- 
urrection, was a death blow to their system; but not to Univer- 
salism — not to Christianity. 

My brother says, " But our Savior tells us cie^/u/e/i/ what this 
doctrine is against which he warned his disciples." He quotes 
from Luke xii. 1, where Christ bids his disciples, "Beware 
of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisij^ The text 
that I presented, was from Matt. xvi. 12 — Where Jesus di- 
rects the disciples, " Beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees 
and of the Sadducees.'" 1 have yet to learn that the sin of hy- 
pocrisy, was a doctriiie publicly believed in and advocated eitlir- 
er by the Pharisees or Sadducees. The master warned his dis- 
ciples of the doctrine of the Pharisees, which represented that 
only those they called the saints would enjoy future and endless 
bliss, while those they called the sinners, would be doomed to 
endless punishment; and, also the doctrine of the Sadducees, 
which denied the doctrine of the resurrection, taught by Jesus, 



60 



and which UniversaUsts in tiiesc days teach. I am not aware 
that the beUef in the existence of God was not cherished by 
others beside the Pharisees in those days. 

2. My brother notices the passage in 1 Timothy iv. 10, 
which I presented as proof that the apostles were opposed for 
believing and preaching a doctrine opposite to endless punish- 
ment. He says of me, " this is the only text that he produced 
in answer to my call." Well, my friends, the call was made for 
but one instance in the whole New Testament — only one. 
Surely he should be satisfied if I presented one. The impres- 
sion designed to be made by the text, was simply of the fact 
taught in it. " Therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, 
[why.^] because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of 
all men. But my brother says that the reason they "suf- 
fered reproach, was because they trusted in the living God in 
opposition to the idol gods of the heathen." But was this let- 
ter of Paul written to a heathen convert.'' Nay, it was written 
to one, who from childhood was educated in the Jewish relig- 
ion, which surely taught the existence of the one living and 
true God; it was written to his son in the gospel ministry — 
Timothy. The gospel taught something more than the Phar- 
isees' and Sadducees' creed, concerning the Great Jehovah. It 
not only taught that he was the living God, but that he was 
" the Savior of all men.^^ Will my brother attempt to maintain 
the position that the apostles met with opposition, or suffered 
reproach only from the heathen nations that the Jews, the 
Pharisees and Sadducees never opposed the cliristians It is 
very evident that there was some other cause, why Paul and 
Timothy, and the rest of the christian band suffered reproach, 
and this is distinctly declared in the passage presented, " because 
they trusted in the living God who is the Savior of all men.'''' 
My brother says God is the Savior of all men, inasmuch as he 
has provided salvation for all, and invited all to come and be 
saved." Well, allow this; the all-wise God would not be so 
unwise as to make provision for the salvation of all, when he 
knew that only a part would come and be saved. But the idea 
he evidently designed to convey, was this — God had made the 
provisioflj yet all would not come ; nevertheless he is the Sav- 



61 



ior of those who do not come! I confess myself unable to com- 
prehend this. 

Were you on board a vessel, when some unfortunate sailor 
had fallen into the ocean, and witnessed the exertions of the 
crew to rescue him from a watery grave, which proved abor- 
tive ; would you call that crew the saviors of the sailor ? They 
indeed made all the offers — they used every means in their 
power to save him; but they were unsuccessful. 

I cannot believe our Heavenly Father is the Savior of all 
men, unless he has made such provision for all, as icill save 
all. 

The latter clause of the text, my brother deems important, 
'* especially of those that believe." I appeal to every chris- 
tian believer present, whether he or she does not feel that he 
or she enjoys a special salvation in believing ? This testimony in 
the text does in no way invalidate the preceding portion of it. I 
will present two passages that will make the subject plain. Paul 
says, 2 Timothy iv. 11. "The cloak that I left at Troas with 
Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, 
but especially the parchments." Will any say that Paul did 
not wish the cloak and the books, because he spoke especially 
of the parchments.^ Again, David says, Ps. xxxi. 11. "I was 
a reproach among all mine enemies, but especially among my 
neighbors." Would any assert that David was not a reproach 
among his enemies from this? By no means. We argue then 
that not only is God the special Savior of the believer here, but 
he is also the Savior of all men, and that it was for preaching 
that he is such, that Christ and his apostles suffered reproach. 
My brother calls for a " single texV that declares this fact, and 
says, " This [i] cannot produce I appeal to the honest and 
candid hearer whether I have done this, and wdiether one testi- 
mony has been presented Avhere Christ or his apostles ever 
preached against the sentiment of endless punishment. Jesus 
warned his disciples against the endless punishment doctrine 
of the Pharisees, and the annihilatio^i doctrine of the Saddu- 
cees! As did Christ so would we say unto you. Beware of the 
doctrine, yes, and also. Beware of the hypocrisy of the Phari- 
sees. They believed ' ' in the doctrine of endless punishment 



62 



for a part or portion oi" the human family." Not for themselves, 
to he sure, hut for those iheij called s'umers. Again, we say, 
beware of this partial, endless wo doctrine of the Pharisees, 
and annihilation doctrine of the Sadducecs. 

in. We pass now to an examination of the third and main 
division of the discourse. This is based upon the following in- 
quiry, which is the same as presented in the former discourse. 
' ' Did Clirisl and his aposlhs use such language in their discour- 
ses and wrilings as was used by believers in endless punishment in 
reference to this subjectV^ The idea, if I understand it, is this. 
If Christ and his apostles ever used such language as the be- 
lievers in endless punishment were accustomed to use as de- 
scriptive of their doctrine, either in parable or otherwise, why 
then, they of course believed with those who taught such doc- 
trine. But we deem this conclusion illegitimate. 

Our reasons are, that were we to allow this to be truth, we 
should in applying this same principle of interpretation, make 
the Savior a believer in many foolish notions entertained among 
the people of those days. For instance, it is well known that 
the Jews believed in the doctrine of demonology ; that people 
were actually taken possession of by wicked, invisible spirits; 
that the spirits of deceased wicked men were permitted to 
return to the earth and torment mankind. Now it is allowed 
by the enlightened of all sects, indeed they unite, in rejecting 
the belief of these heathen demons as absurd in the extreme. 
And yet it is said repeatedly in the New Testament, that the 
Savior cast out devils. On a certain occasion the Pharisees 
accused Christ of casting out devils, or demons, by the power 
of the idol " Beelzebub, the prince of devils." In reply, Jesus 
exclaimed, " If I, by Beelzebub, cast out devils, by whom do 
your children cast them out.^" Here Jesus did not correct 
their heathen notions on this subject and instruct them that this 
God was but a senseless idol, but he allowed them to remain still 
in their belief of Beelzebub as the prince of devils. 

If he had thought it important to correct this error, particu- 
larly, he doubtless would have done it. But because he used 
this language common among them, it is no more right for us 
to say that he believed in and taught the possession of devils, 



63 



as a truth, than it would he for us to say that our Physicians 
heheve that certain imaginary saints have tnken up their ahode 
in those persons who are afllicted witli the St. Anthony's Fire — 
or St. Vitus' Dance, &c. 

These are simply diseases of the body, and are not caused 
by the power of some imaginaiy Saint. 

" Jesus evidently did not deem it necessary or important to 
undertake to correct all the erroneous and absurd notions of 
that age. The Jews were exceedingly superstitious and bigot- 
ted. They entertained^a vast variety of dogmas of the most 
unreasonable and foolish description. Had Christ turned his 
attention to these minor errors, and endeavored to banish from 
the minds of the people all the absurdities they cherished, it 
would have occupied his whole time and attention. Jesus, rath- 
er than spend his time upon the multitude of these lesser errors, 
deemed it more important to correct the greater errors which 
the Jews entertained in regard to the character of God, and 
the principles by which he is governed in his dealings with the 
world, and to devote his whole energy to the establishment of 
his gospel among men, knowing that wherever that gospel pre- 
vailed it would unavoidably sweep away this doctrine of demons 
and all false notions." 

This subject we have introduced, merely to illustrate the idea 
we intended to convey, when we said, in our former rejoinder, 
that Jesus sometimes in his instructions made his language ' ' to 
conform to the religious prejudices and superstitions of the Is- 
raelites, yet without endorsing their superstitions as truth." 

This my brother is unwilling to admit, because as he thinks 
on this principle it will be impossible to prove that there is such 
a place or state as Heaven. Very well, I do not wish to reply 
to this objection, as I do not rely upon heathenish testimony 
in proof" of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind." 

My brother quotes again from Josephus, and speaks of my 
admitting all he contended for, which he shows is not the case, 
in that he immediately proceeds to make a long quotation from 
Dr. Fisk, the substance of which is "that Christ and his apos- 
tles used the same language employed by the Jews in reference 
to endless punishment, and that^without the least intimation that 



64 



i\n'y held a contrary doctrine. Whether Christ and his apos- 
tles taught a docti'ine contrary to endless punishment, viz. the 
tinal holiness and haj)piness of all mankind, is a point that comes 
under the latter head of the question under discussion, and 
which will he noticed when we come to search the Word in its 
support. 

Allow that Jesus used the same phraseology that the Jews 
did when speaking of endless punishment; it still remains 
to to be shown that Jesus appUed this language to the 
future, endless condition of all the wicked, — as the Jews 
did. The challenge of my brother to me to produce " a 
single term or phrase employed by the Jews to express 
endless punishment, stronger than those used by Jesus 
Christ and his apostles;" appears to me to be off from the 
question under discussion, and may with propriety be met 
with a challenge for him to produce language used by Christ 
and his apostles, stronger than that used by Jews or heathen. 
For surely if they taught this doctrine of endless punishment 
which is deemed the pillar of morality by many, they would 
have presented it in plain, distinct terms, so that there need be no 
question about it. But I make not the challenge, as were there 
such a case, my brother would have presented it as one of his 
proof texts. We will here ask a question which has often pre- 
sented itself to our mind. If Christ and his apostles taught 
this blessed, nay, horrid sentiment of endless misery, so conge- 
nial to the opinions and feehngs of the Jews and heathen gen- 
erally, why did they persecute him so bitterly? 

Was it for preaching this doctrine of partialism — endless 
and unmitigated woe — that the pure, the humble, the sinless, 
the kind, and benevolent Jesus was crucified? No, no! The 
bosom of the " beloved Son," contained too much of the milk 
of human kindness, too much of love, too much of pity and 
compassion ; it felt too much of the spirit of the first and sec- 
ond commandments — love to God and love to man — on which 
hang all the law and the prophets, to teach the doctrine of 
God's endless love to a part, and God's endless hatred to the 
remaining part of the human family. 



65 



I. My brother accuses me of having made an ' ' unwarrant- 
able assumption that three of his proof texts were parables; 
which he says I " made no attempt to, and cannot prove." It 
will be remembered by the hearer, I presume, that I gave an 
explanation of what was considered a parable. I did not sup- 
pose my brother would deny those texts were parables ; it is the 
opinion of the most intelligent and respectable commentators, 
ancient as well as modern, and of all denominations, that the 
narration of the Rich Man and Lazarus, is not a literal history 
but a parable. I may mention the names of Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. 
Whitby, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Gill, the ancient and learned 
Theophylact, Dr. Proudfit, Archbishop Tillotson, &c. all but 
one, I believe, were believers in the doctrine of endless 
punishment. Dr. Lightfoot speaks of it as credulity and ignor- 
ance, to suppose this a literal history; and in addition remarks 
as follows — " That it was a parable not only the consent of all 
expositors may assure us, but the thing itself speaks it. 

My brother's quotation from Dr. Clarke need not be noticed, 
as it proves not that the account is real history. Three objec- 
tions are urged against calling this passage in Luke xvi. 22 — 26, 
a parable. 

1. He says, "it is not introduced as such." It begins 
" There ivas, &c." The eloquent and celebrated French di- 
vine, Saurin, says, " certain critics affirm, some ancient man- 
uscripts introduce the passage with these words, " Jesus spake 
a parable, saying. There was a certain rich man,"&c. Arch- 
bishop Tillotson agrees with this. But receive the record just as 
it is now, this objection of my brother's is of no weight at all, 
since it could be applied with the same propriety to the parable 
of the good Samaritan, (which begins — A certain man went 
down from Jerusalem,") and the prodigal son, and many oth- 
ers that are recorded without any distinct declaration that they 
are parables. 

2. My brother says, "there is no feature of this account 
that is necessarily figurative. " I should like to know if this is 
the fact, how large the bosom of Abraham might be, if Lazarus 
was literally carried into it by angels. 

3. He says, " It is unlike all other parables," which were 

9 



66 



" designed to illustrate high and important truths. If this be a 
^ parable, it is a fictitious narration of something — no one 
knows what." I reply, that as this narration, from what we 
have already said, must evidently be a parable; and as it was 
spoken by our Lord, it must have been designed to illustrate 
some truth. The remark that, "if it be a parable, it is a ficti- 
tious narration of something — no one knows what," I presume 
to be an acknowledgement that if I can prove it to be a para- 
• ble, it no longer is an argument, or proof text, in support of 
the doctrine of endless punishment. 

I will offer one or two more reasons why this must be a 
parable. 

If received literally, it would teach that a certain man was 
lost, simply because he was rich, and another saved because he 
was poor. The passage does not say that the rich man was 
vicious and wicked. The only thing that is alleged against him 
is, that he was rich; that he was clothed in purple and fine lin- 
en, and fared sumptuously every day. Now if the rich in this 
world are to be lost forever, I tremble for som^ members of 
my brother's denomination. Dr. Clarke says of the rich man, 
" In comparison of thousands, he was not only blameless, but 
he was a virtuous man." 

Again, there is nothing in the record to show that the moral 
character of the beggar was any better than that of the rich 
man. Another objection to receiving the passage as a real 
history is, that it would compel us to believe that when the beg- 
gar died, he actually and literally went into the bosom of Abra- 
ham. How absurd the idea. We cannot say that this is figu- 
rative, unless it be allowed that the whole account is figurative. 
It would violate all rules of language to say, a part of the trans- 
actions were figurative, and another part literal. 

Another objection to giving a literal construction to the pas- 
sage is, that it would teach that heaven and hell are so near, 
that the inhabitants can see and converse with each other. 
Can any who possess the least sensibilty, desire to go to heav- 
en, if they must there look upon their father or mother, their 
brothers or sisters, or some of their dear friends, and countless 
multitudes of their fellow beings, writhing in flames of fire, and 



67 



hear them shrieking in agony, and calHng for water to cool 
their tongues? What kind of hearts, I would like to be in 
formed, must those possess who can wish to enter such a heav- 
en? Again, must not these sights be seen, and these sounds 
be heard, by those who are in heaven, if the account of the Rich 
man and Lazarus is a literal history ? But enough ; we think 
that reasons sufficient have already been presented to satisfy our 
hearers, that the passage under consideration is a parable. 
Was it then candid in me when I before declared that it was 
a parable? 

My brother asks. What great truth is even alluded to if the 
passage is not understood literally ? He calls for proof that 
Christ applied it to something in this state of existence. If I 
have shown that his application cannot be correct, it is suffi- 
cient so far as the argument is concerned. It is not my duty 
to give the true application, since I do not rely upon the pas- 
sage in support of my side of the question; and again, the time 
allotted me, does not admit of a thorough examination of the 
parable. Suffice it that we state in outline, that we consider 
the rich man the parabolic representative of the unbelieving 
Jewish people ; that Lazarus is the parabolic representative of 
the publicans and sinners, whether of Jewish or Gentile ex- 
traction; that by Abraham's bosom, is symbolized the gospel 
kingdom; and that Hades is symbolically used, as in other 
parts of the Bible, to represent the miseries and torments ex- 
perienced by those of whom the rich man is a parabolic repre- 
sentative. Jesus evidently designed by this allegory to repre- 
sent the casting away of the Jews in consequence of their blind 
and obstinate unbelief, and the entrance of the Gentiles into 
the gospel kingdom of Jesus Christ.* 

II. My brother's second proof text is Luke xii. 4, 5: where 
Jesus said to his disciples, " Be not afraid of them that kill the 
body, and after that, have no more that they can do. But I 
will forewarn you whom ye shall fear; Fear him, which after 
he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; (Gehenna,) yea, 



* Agreeably to the notice given I lectured on the parable the following iSunclay 
evening. 



68 



I say unto you fear him." The simple idea of this passage 
to my mind, as I gave before, is that Jesus would have his dis- 
ciples'^ fear^God, and not men. God who had infinite power, 
and^therefore could inflict upon them something more grievous 
than men could do. Human tribunals could deprive them of 
physical life, but they could do no mora. I did not assert that 
by Gehenna in the passage, was to be understood the calami- 
ties which should befall the Jews, as my brother v/ould repre- 
sent me as having done. The question upon the text is, " does it 
teach the doctrine of endless punishment for any part or portion 
of the human family?" The whole argument, therefore, is bas- 
ed upon the word Gehenna — here translated hell. Does this 
word signify endless punishment? I answer it does not, and 
further, that the word was not used by the Jews in such a 
sense, before or at the time of the Savior. But, allowing that 
it does here mean endless punishment, for the sake of the ar- 
gument, which we contend it does not, there is no proof from the 
text itself, that God loill cast any into endless woe! It proves 
nothing further than that God " hath power, not that he loill. 
You will get my idea more clearly from the words of Jesus, 
Matt. iii. 9; where he says, "God is able of these stones to 
raise up children unto Abraham." God was a6/e, he had /7ie 
power to perform the act, but that was no proof that he would 
do it. Again, Matt, xxvi. 53, Jesus says, " Thinkest thou that 
I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently send 
me more than twelve legions of angels," Although God 
was able — had the power — to send these angels, yet he did 
not do it. 

My brother represents me as saving my criticisms on Ge- 
henna for certain reasons, until I came to notice his third proof 
text. Now be it known to you all, that my reason for not say- 
ing more upon this text before, was the very good reason that 
my brother presented this text and the parable of the * Offend- 
ing Hand' together; that he said nothing in the way of com- 
ment upon the text itself. I thank him for reminding me of 
the mistake I made, in saying that the two words from which 
Gehenna is derived — Gee and Hinnom were Greek words, ^ 
they are indeed Hebrew — and it can nowhere be shown 



69 



that these words in the Hebrcv/ text of the Old Testament, 
have the least allusion to the doctrine of endless piniishinent. 
My brother well knows that this was a mistake of careless- 
ness, from the remarks I made upon the word under the first 
division of my former discourse. This is excusable. But the 
presenting of two passages, where the word Gehenna occurs, 
and then commenting upon them as though the original word 
was Hades, is quite another thing. I am glad my brother 
has discovered his error, and is willing to allow that Gehenna 
is not a word which could ever be translated grave. I pass 
now to his third text. 

III. Mark ix. 43, 44. The parable of the Offending Hand. I 
need not notice his question, in which he represents me as tri- 
fling with the word of God. Perhaps his views and mine may be 
difierent upon this matter. It appears that I was in error in 
supposing the extracts which he presented from Josephus, in 
his remarks upon this passage, should have reference to the 
place of endless punishm.ent, which he calls hell ; it was in ref- 
erence to the phrases undying worm and unquenchable fire, 
that he quoted it. Well, I did not divine that this was his ob- 
ject, since he gave two reasons why the grave could not be 
signified in the passage ; and quoted from Josephus' discourse 
on Hades, which surely was something quite different from 
Gehenna in the passage. Again, I did suppose that the 
phrases, undying worm and unquenchable Jire , were not literal, 
but figurative expressions, and if so, they should be inter- 
preted with reference to the subject to which they were appli- 
ed. If they were applied to endless punishment, then we 
should understand them differently from what we should if they 
were applied to something that should take place in this world. 
My brother asked in his former discourse, — having quoted 
from Josephus, where he introduces terms as applied to the 
heathen //«c?c5 — not to the Jewish Gehenna; "With what 
propriety or consistency Christ employed their own phraseology, 
if he did not allow the doctrine ?" What doctrine ? The un- 
dying worm and the unquenchable fire ? No, surely not, these 
were only appendages of the supposed place of endless misery. 



70 



By the doctrine he evidently meant that which he wishes to sus- 
tain, namely — endless punishment. Well, does the passage 
prove this woe will befall any part or portion of the human fam- 
ily? I think not. And I cannot perceive that my brother has 
introduced any proof to show that the Jews used the term Gehen- 
7f«, to designate a place of endless punishment ; and that there- 
fore the disciples of the master understood him as speaking of 
that when he delivered the parable of the Offending Hand ! To 
be sure my brother says, " I am prepared to prove that Gehenna 
had come into common use before our Saviour's advent, to ex- 
press endless punishment, and they (the Jews) must have under- 
stood him as using it in the same sense." But I cannot discover 
that he has presented such proof ; I should rather have had the 
thing itself, than the assertion. For my own part I confess 
myself ignorant of any thing that can be considered unquestion- 
able authority upon this point. I presume if my brother had 
had this, he would have presented it and thus have set the mat- 
ter at rest upon the point, that the Jews used the word Gehen- 
na, as descriptive of a state of future endless punishment. 

I spoke of the true idea set forth by this parable in my for- 
mer discourse. I therefore need not do it now. That the pas- 
sage with the two that follow it, should be understood figura- 
tively, as parables, and not in a literal sense, is clear, because 
if taken literally it would be attributing to Jesus the doctrine, 
that some will enter upon the spiritual existence of another life, 
deprived of a hand, a foot, or an eye — than which nothing 
could be more unscriptural or absurd. The remarks that my 
brother makes upon my closing paragraph consist mainly of 
questions which deny nothing I asserted, and which it is not 
my duty to answer ; I have not the affirmative of the question, 
but the negative. Besides there appears to be, and I believe I 
am not mistaken, something like one Matthew Hale Smith about 
them, from whose lectures I presume my brother has gathered 
much material. If he knew him as well as some, he would be 
cautious how he made much use of that unfortunate individu- 
al's libellous production. 

IV. His fourth passage is Matt. xxv. 31 — 46. The parable of 



71 



the Sheep and Goats. I marvel much that my brotlior should de- 
ny that the passage is a parable. But this he does, and says, that 
before I can make the application which I did with the least 
shoiv of plausibility, I must prove that it is a parable. 

He professes to give my reasons for calling it such, but he 
does not go far enough. He acknowledges that the preceding 
portion of the chapter consists of two parables. The latter, 
the parable of the Ten Talents, is known to be such, because 
the record says, " For the kingdom of heaven is as a man trav- 
elling into a far country." Now the passage we are to notice 
says, that " When the Son of Man shall come, &:,c. — he shall 
separate them (all nations) one from another as a Shepherd di- 
videth his sheep from the goats;" with this my brother stops in 
his quotation. He acknowledges the latter clause of the 32d 
verse to be figurative, but the rest of the passage he tells us is 
to be understood as literal and not parabolical. The 32d verse 
is as follows, "And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but 
the goats on his left." Is this to be understood literally ? Yes, 
that is the amount of my brother's argument. Very well then, 
the passage answers not the purpose for which it is produced, 
for if it is to be received in a literal sense, it is far from prov- 
ing the endless punishment of man. And these, who ? why 
these on the left hand, these goats, not wicked men to be sure, 
for the passage does not contain the words ; to be sure the 
words, the cursed, occur; but who are the cursed ? the goats of 
course, for be it observed this account is not a parable but a 
literal fact, according to my brother's argument. " And these 
(goats) shall go away into everlasting punishment." And what 
is the everlasting punishment \ Why the everlasting fire, pre- 
pared for the devil and his angels. Everlasting fire? yes, a 
literal fire, it matters not what may be the materials that keep 
the fire alive, it is an everlasting Jire prepared, designed for the 
devil and his angels, but then the goats are to go into it ; there 
is no excuse for them, never mind if they are not the devil's an- 
gels, the decree has gone forth. Depart ! and these shall go into 
everlasting punishment. 

Do you my friends call this trifling with the language of Je- 



72 



siiR ? If is. And whose nrtiumcnt is it that docs this? Is it 
liis wlio claims tho passage to he a lUeral truth, or is it his who 
asks only that the language naay be received as the Great Tea- 
cher uttered it, and designed that it should be; figuratively, to 
illustrate an important truth ? I submit it to the candid hear- 
er whether the passage is a parable or otherwise. 

I have presented this matter in the light I have, that my 
brother may see that bold sissertion and ridicule is two edged, 
it may be used by each, but it is not the true weapon for either. 
Let then the aim be to present convincing argument, and plain, 
reasonable, scripture proof in support of affirmative declara- 
tions. 

My brother endeavors to overthrow my position that the pas- 
sage has special reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
the overthrow of the Jewish nation. But his objections are bas- 
ed wholly upon the fact that it is to be understood literally, and 
not as a -parable. He further thinks that if he can show that 
the Jewish overthrow is not alluded to, that it will be admitted 
on all hands that this passage " is descriptive of a day of gen- 
eral judgment yet future." 

For one I should not be willing to admit the position. I 
should then call for proof allowing that there is to be sucli a 
day of judgment^ as my brother speaks of, which by the way I 
do not find taught in the Holy Bible. — I say, allowing that 
there is to be such a day, I must still call for proof that a portion 
of the human family will be sentenced to endless punishment. 

I need not condescend to notice his objections, since I have 
shown that the foundation upon which they are based is not 
literal but parabolical language. Where are his arguments in 
support of his sentiment drawn from the passage ? I have seen 
none other; then if it does not refer to the Jewish overthrow, 
it must refer to another world. This I do not admit. The 
careful reader of the New Testament will remember that the 
division into chapters and verses is an invention of comparative- 
ly recent origin ; he will therefore, in commencing a chapter, 
be careful to observe whether the subject is continued from the 
previous chapter or not. Now the chapter in which the para- 



73 



ble of the Sheep and Goiits is recorded, begins with the words 
TJini shall, ^v. When ? look back through the 24th chap- 
ter, and you will have your answer. Now I believe that it is 
universally allowed that the first part of this chapter has refer- 
ence to the time of the Jewish overthrow, and I have never 
been able to discover where Jesus left that subject and proceed- 
ed to speak of another and very different one. As therefore 
the former part of the Savior's discourse, speaks of the Jeru- 
salem destruction, so does the whole, unless it can be distinct- 
ly shown that Jesus did change, and where he changed his 
theme. As the parable under notice is recorded in this dis- 
course, it has reference to the same general subject spoken of 
here. The time to which the parable refers depends upon the 
meaning of the word thm at the commencement of the 2oth 
chapter. To learn this, as I before said, we must examine the 
24th chapter. I will read the I4th to the 21 st verses. * * * * 
Now the question is, what is spoken of here ? Every one will 
allow that it is the Jewish overthrow. The time then is fixed, 
to which this parable refers ; and as it has allusion to something 
that took place in this world, it cannot teach the doctrine of 
endless punishment, for any part or portion of the human 
family. 

V. My brother's fifth and last proof text is 2 Thessaloni- 
ans i. 7 — 9. The amount of his argument upon this passage, 
is, that the Jewish overthrow is not plainly alluded to, in the 
epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians. He also says of me, " He 
cannot furnish the name of a single biblical student of any note 
who applies this text to that event." In reply I ask, whether 
such men as Dr. Hammond, Newcome Cappe and Dr. Gill, 
were men of mean obscurity ? I assert without the fear of con- 
tradiction that such individuals as these stand high in the theo- 
logical world as biblical students of some note. Perhaps as 
high as my brother himself would like to stand. They answer 
his assertion. Let it be observed that my brother has not re- 
plied to my arguments on the passage, neither has he presented 
an iota of proof this evening to show that it must have refer- 
ence to another state ef existence. He has noticed, indeed 
10 



74 



certain texts uliicli 1 presented to show the tiiiw ;iHuded to by 
Paul. But he has not shown that they necessarily have reference 
to the future world. 1 vvif-jh to quote here Hgaiu Luke xvii. 30, 31 ; 
Matt. xxiv. 15 — IS; Mutt, xxiii. 36 ; Luke xxi. — 23; Matt. x. 
23; xvi. 27, 28; xxiv. 29, 30.* Now from these passages we 
learn that directions were to be observed in tha t day, when the 
Son of man should be revealed, ^vhen the abomination of 
desolation spoken of by Djoiel should be witnessed, when Je- 
rusalem should be compassed with armies ; and Jesus testifie.s 
that all these things should come upon that generation, yea the 
disciples should not have gone over the cities of Israel till the 
Son of Man be come, that then the tribes of the earth should 
see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with pow- 
er and great glory, and that there were some standing before 
him who should not tyste death, till they beheld the Son of 
man coming in his kingdom. Yvhat shall we say of the indi- 
vidual who presumes to dispute this plain testimony ? May I 
not with justness retort the language deemed appropriate to 
me ? Let him who calls in question the words of the gre.it 
master, go and settle the matter with Jesus. For my part I 
prefer to receive the teachings of my Savior, as of more weight 
than the attempts to ' explain away,' made by persons in these 
days. . r-'" 

In conclusion, I remark, that [ have thus briefly, endeavored 
again to meet, what my brother has presented as proof of the 
affirmative of the question He presented in his first discourse 
five passages from the New Testament ; these he has reiterat- 
ed in his second, and whether I have shown that these, which 
are his strongesty U not all of his proof texts, do not teach the 
horrid sentiment of endless punishment, or otherwise, is left 
to the candid judgment of our hearers. 

One word upon the passage quoted as the conclusion of his 
discourse. Mark xvi. 16. " He that beiieveth and is baptized, 
shall be saved ; but he that beiieveth not, shall be damned." 
I need not ask from what those should be saved who believed ? 



* The reader will please turu to llie paisag-ei. 



75 



III wlKit we have this evening advanced, it is nvident that it 
was not endless punishment in another world. If you will 
read the verses that follow the passage, you will find some- 
thing like tliis — " And these sitrns shall follow them that be- 
es o 

lieve : In my name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak 
with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents; and if they 
drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay 
hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Does my brother 
profess to bdivve ! Can he do these things ? Then let him 
be cautious how he quotes language on which he intends a pe- 
culiar construction shall be put. 

I leave the subject with the prayer that the time may soon 
come when the heathen sentiment of Partialism, " The doc- 
trine that a part or portion of the human family shall be doom- 
ed to suffer endless punishment, in another state of being," 
may be eradicated from the minds and hearts of men, as tho- 
roughly as it is from that Book of books, the Holy Scriptures, 
and that in its place the light of divine truth, and the spirit of 
love may pervade the whole intelligent creation. — Amen. 



DISCUSSION, 



Part 11. No. 1. 

IN THE METHODIST CHURCH, APRIL 11, 1843. 
BY E . FRANCIS. 



** Is the doctrine of endless punishment for any part or jJortion 
of the human family taught in the Scriptures ; or, is the doctrine 
of the final holiness and happiness of all mankindV^ 



WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE? 

TKXT — ROM. IV. 3. 

The subject of discussion this evening is the latter part of 
the conjoint question we have just read. The language I have 
selected for my text, seemed to me peculiarly fitting, as it is 
my duty and pleasure to speak in behalf of the position that 
the Scriptures teach the doctrine of the final holiness and hap- 
piness of all mankind." 

I acknowledge that the situation I have occupied on the oth- 
er evenings of the discussion, was not very pleasing to my feel- 
ings ; in that it was my duty to combat error, and show the 
absurdity of certain arguments relied upon as proof of the sen- 
timent of endless punishment for a part or portion of the hu- 
man family, without being permitted to present direct proofs 
of the opposite sentiment. At this time a more agreeable task 
is mine. " To the law and to the testimony," our subject di- 



77 



rects us. Do the Scriptures leach the universal and ini))artiHl 
love of God as manifested in ultimately redeeming t'le w hole 
human family /"row all sinfulness and misery, and making them 
finally Iioli/ and happy ? 

As my time is very brief, and I am wholly confined to the 
Scriptures, you will perceive that I am obliged to omit the 
thousand arguments 1 might derive from reason, from the 
workings of God's spirit on the renewed heart, and from God's 
teachings in nature. Even many of the abundant proofs fur- 
nished by the Holy Sciptures, T must wholly omit for the want 
of time. 

I. It has been sometimes said that Universalists derive the 
most of their scripture arguments from the Old Testament ; 1 
will, therefore, produce but little of its testimony to the doc- 
trine of " the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken 
by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began," 
Acts iii. 21. From the Old Testament, then, I now produce 
only the promises made to the Ancient Patriarchs. In Genesis 
xxii. 18, we find it recorded, as the language of the Lord to 
Abraham, " In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
blessed." This declaration was renewed unto Isaac (xxvi.4;) 
and the same promise was confirmed unto Jacob in Genesis 
xxviii. 14 ; it is written thus — " In thy seed shall all the fam- 
ilies of the earth be blessed. These promises are also spoken of 
by Peter (Acts iii. 25,) on this wise : And in thy seed shall 
all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." From this testimo- 
ny we learn, that the eventual blessedness in Christ of all the 
nations, families and kindreds of the earth, is guarantied by 
the promise of the Almighty, who, " is not a man that he 
should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent. Hath 
he said, and shall he not do it? or hath spoken, and shall he 
not make it good?" (Numbers xxiii. 19.) Moreover, *' When 
God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no 
greater, he sware by himself. . . . For men verily swear by the 
greater ; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all 
strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto 
the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirm- 
ed it by an oath : that by two immutable things, in which it was 



78 



nnpossih/r for (jo.'l to lie, we might liiive a strong coasolution, 
ulio have fled tor refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before 
us," (Hebrews vi. iS — 18.) That the language of the prom- 
i.->e conveys the idea of un 'vn'salif?/ cannot be successfully dis- 
j)uted, inasmuch as no individual can be found who belongs 
not to some nation, family, or kindred. And, indeed, Partial- 
ists themselves are constrained to admit the universality of this 
language. On Gen. xxviii. 14, Dr. Clarke remarks, " Not on- 
ly all till/ race, but all the other families or tribes of mankind, 
which have not proceeded from the Abrahamic family, shall he 
blessed ; for Jesus Christ by the grace o f God tasted death 
FOR EVERY MAN." And ou Gen. xii. 3, he remarks, In the 
Messiah shall all the families of the earth be blessed ; for he 
shall taste death for every man ; his gospel shall be preached 
throughout the world ; and innu?rierable blessings be derived oti 
ALL MANKIND, through his death and intercession.'" But an 
objection is sometimes urged here, that these promises which 
are thus universal, are not gospel promises, but only promises 
of temporal blessings. The apostle refutes this objection ; he 
calls them gospel promises. Paul, in Gal. iii. alluding to them 
says, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify 
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto A- 
braham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed." And he 
adds — "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises 
made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many ; but as for one, 
and to thy seed, which is Christ." Again, we would ask, in 
Jesus only an eart'dy prince and merely a temporal Savior ? 
No — his is a heavenly dominion, and his is a spiritual salva- 
tion, and such, also, must be the blessing. It was said of him, 
" Thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save his people 
from their sins. Matt. i. 2i. In accordance with this text, 
Peter, in speaking of the gospel preached to Abraham, says, 
in Acts iii. 26, "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of 
the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying m\{6 
Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth 
be blessed." IIoio were they to be blessed ? — with lemporaj 
blessings, only I No — he ir tlie testimony •— " VuXo you, first, 
God having raised up hi? Son Jesu?, sent liim to bless you, in 



79 



taming awaij every o.vk of you vrom his iMfiun iks" — i. e. in 
saving everyvixdividu vi. "from his sins." 

This testimony that we have presented, fully nie^^ts the objec- 
tion that these promises'niade to the Patriarchs vvei-e promises 
of /e;upom/ blessings only. Tho}- were indeed spirihial, and as 
the apostle testifies, Gospel promises, and also promises of jus- 
tification through faith. 

But again, it is objected that admitting they are gospel prom- 
ises, nevertheless they are conditional; that the blessing indi- 
cated in the promise was to be enjoyed through failh, and that 
as faith is not exercised by all the nations, families, and kind- 
reds of the earth, soothe prospect of universal blessedness in 
Christ is a mere illusion. 

1st. We answer that there is nothing in the promises them- 
selves that is conditional. The language is positive and abso- 
lute. The Lord says, In thy seed shall all be blessed. We 
further answer, these promises are either unconditional, or else 
God's veracity is impeached. To say that faith is any part of 
the condition is the veriest absurdity. For the promise is the 
very thing to^_be believed. As such, it must be absolutely true 
before we believe it, else we are required to believe a falsehood, 
or something which is not true till we believe it. If it he false, 
no one can justly be required to believe it; and if it be true, 
its verity cannot be affected either by the faith or the disbelief 
of man. The argument then which we are noticing virtually 
involves the absurdity, that faith creates the object of faith — in 
other words, that the promise which we are required to believe 
is not true until we believe it! The promise then, we say, is ab- 
solute, and by it the doctrine of universal salvation is clearly 
established. It may perhaps he denied that the promise is the 
thing to be believed; we remark then, (1.) That with equal 
propriety one might deny that the gospel is the thing to be be- 
lieved — for when God made promises to Abraham, he preached 
ike gospel, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed, Gal. iii. 
8. (2.) The gospel w^s thus preached, that the heathen might 

* Many of the ideas found in this discourse, were obtained from A. C. Thomas, 
W. M. t\rnald, and A. B. (Jroiih. 



80 



be justified //z?-ouo7i faith. Faith in what? Certainly in the 
doctrine preaclied. Will it then be contended, that any man 
can be justified by faith in that which is not true befi^re it is be- 
lieved ? 

'2d. It is written, "they wliich be of faith are blessed loith 
faithful Abraham," Gal. iii. 9. We inquire then, How was 
Abraham'"'blessed Plainly in believing that in his seed all the 
nations, families, and kindreds of the earth should be blessed. 
His blessedness was consequent of faith in universal blessed- 
ness — and the presupposition is, that the fulfilment of the prom- 
ise was not, in any sense, dependent upon the exercise of faith 
by him. And as they who believe the same gospel are blessed 
in like manner, it follows that the alleged conditionality of the 
promise is based in error. Jesus said "Abraham rejoiced to 
see my day; and he saw it, and was glad," John viii. 56. He 
saw it by faith; and the righteousness of his faith was predica- 
ted of the absolute character of the promise which announced 
the coming of the Savior. 

In 1. John v. 9—11, we read thus: " If we receive the wit- 
ness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the wit- 
ness of God which he has testified of his Son. He that believ- 
eth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself : he that be- 
lieveth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not 
the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, 
that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." 
Be it observed, that in this passage, believers and unbelievers 
are called upon to believe the record that God gave of his Son. 

Now it is the province of a witness to make that known which 
is already true, and by disbelieving his testimony we impeach 
his veracity. What is the record? This is the record, that 
God hath given to us eternal life." And " he that believeth 
not" this record " hath made God a liar," But how can this 
be, if the unbeliever hath not this life made sure for him before 
he believes? The very fact that unbelievers are required to 
believe that they have eternal life, proves that they have it in- 
fallibly in store for them, whether they believe it or not; be- 
cause, if they thus have it, and yet disbelieve it, they make God 
a liar, (that is, they impeach the Divine veracity ;) but, if they 



81 



(io not have it we cannot see how they could make him a liar if 
they did disbelieve it, lor they would disbelieve no truth. It is 
precisely so with the promises. We are called upon to believe 
them. They must, therefore, be true before we believe, and 
foith cannot be the condition. I am willing to grant that, with- 
out faith, we cannot eiijoij the promises; but this does not prove 
that they are false, or not true till we believe them. They 
ARE true, and our disbelief cannot effect thier verity. And 
they which believe '• are blessed with faithful Abraham." But 
" what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the 
faith [rather faithfulness] of God without effect? God forbid: 
yea, let God be true, but every man a liar." (Rom. iii. 3, 4.) 

We feel no disposition to deny that conditions are appended 
to many Divine testimonies — such, for instance, as this in I- 
saiah i. 19, 20: " If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat 
the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be de- 
voured of the sv,'ord: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken 
it." I further hold, that while the promise of universal bles- 
sedness in Christ is absolute, our present happiness is, in a 
great measure, dependant on the hearty acknowledgment of the 
truth. Nevertheless, should every soul of our race live and 
die in total ignorance of the promise in question, the ultimate 
purpose of the Almighty would not be defeated thereby. And 
I am satisfied that this statement is fully sustained by the argu- 
ments already presented. 

But, again, the apostle hath distinctly declared, in so many 
words, that the divine promises are not conditional. "But as 
God is true, our word towards you was not yea and nay. For 
the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you 
by us, even by me, and Sylvanus and Timotheus, was not yea 
and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in 
him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us," 

Now then it appears to us that the doctrine of conditions to 
be performed by the creature, contradicts the spirit of this Sa- 
cred Scripture. It affirms that the divine promises, if believed, 
will be yea; and if disbelieved, will be nay. And, therefore, 
instead of the apostle's doctrine, that they are all yea and a- 
men, it contends that they are bolh yea and nay, according to 



82 



the belief or uiibelicfoi' men. And, in fact, this svstem (^oea 
still further. It approaches the deistical ground, that God'.s 
promises are neiliier one thing nor the other, neither yea nor 
nay, iiiitil they are beUeved or disbeUeved hy man! ! 

The language of the Almighty to Abraham, is absolute and 
unequivocal. No conditions are expressed — no conditions 
are implied. " In thee and in thy seed shall all the nations, 
families, and kindreds of the earth be blessed." The thing 
promised is clearly expressed; and it is beyond questioning 
that the Lord God had at his disposal all the means which are 
essential to the fulfilment of his purpose. I am " fully persua- 
ded that what he has promised he is able also to perform;" and 
consequently, I stagger not at the promise of God through un- 
belief," but am " strong in faith, giving glory to God." Sin in- 
deed, abounds — but grace or power abounds much more than 
sin, Rom. v. 20. Unbelief prevails — nevertheless " he is faith- 
ful who promised," Heb. x. 23. Men are in bondage — but, 

the creation itself also shall he delivered from the bondage of 
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God," 
Rom, viii. 21. 

So much then for the affirmed conditionahty of the promises. 
Indeed, we are willing to acknowledge that man is not a pas- 
swe instrument in the hands of God; that God's promises will 
not be fulfilled upon his head with man in a posture of unwil- 
lingness or ignorance ; that a certain condition of the mind is 
requisite for the experiencing of God's salvation; — but if this 
be called a conditional salvation, it is a condition that is sure of 
a true performance; for God, after all, is the ultimate and di- 
recting cause, and in this sense it may be said that " we are 
his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, 
which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." 

II. We pass now from the Old Testament to the new. We 
have endeavored to present clearly to the minds of our hear- 
ers, what we believe to be the truth, concerning the precious 
promises made to the patriarchal fathers. We will now present 
testimony from the New Testament that we conceive to be m 
perfect accordance with the promises. Our testimony is in 
proof of the doctrine, that the ultimate universal holiness and 
happiness of the race, is the will of God. 



83 



That the all-wise, and all-powerful Being, who created and 
Fustaiiis all beings must have had some design, some will in 
the creation of mankind, no one will deny. The only difficulty 
which cmt arise, is in determining lokai that will is. What then, 
13 God's will reFpecting us? In 1 Timothy ii. 3, 4, we read aa 
fallows: " For this [i. e., supplications, prayers, Slc. for all 
men] is good and acceptal)le in the sight of God our Savior, 
who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowl- 
edge of the truth. 

It is a settled rule, that the word all is to be taken in its most 
unlimited sense, unless an express limitation is named, or the 
nature of the subject requires a limitation. By examining the 
context, it will be seen, that so far from limiting its meaning, 
the apostle expressly guards against it, by specially including 
even the Pagan rulers, who then were persecutors of the 
church — and by connecting it with the duty of praying for all 
men. In the 6th verse, he also connects it with the extent of 
JesUs' redemption or ransom — thus expressly rendering the 
meaning of the words " all men," as universal as possible. I 
will quote the atb and 6th verses. " For there is one God, 
and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Je- 
sus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due 
time." 

We wish to quote here previous to oifering other comments, 
the following remarks by Dr. Whitby, whose general ortho- 
doxy none will be disposed to dispute. He says: 

" These verses contain several convincing arguments that 
God wills the salvation of all men in particular, and that Christ 
thus died for all. For, 1. The apostle here enjoins us to pray 
for all men, because God ivill have all men to he saved. Now 
it is unquestionably the Christian's duty, and was the constant 
practice of the church, to praj^ for all men in particular; and 
therefore the reason here assigned for this duty must reach to 
all men in particular. 2. The apostle reasons thus: God will 
have all men to he saved, because he is the God of all, the common 
Father, Creator, Governor and Preserver of all men. Now thus 
he is the God of all men in particular; and so this argument 
must show that he would have all men in particular to be saved. 



84 



3. He will have all men to he saved, saiih the apostle; ybr there 
is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who 
gave himself a ransom for all. Now if the argument from one 
God was, as we have proved, designed to show that he is the 
God of all men in particular; the argument from this one medi- 
ator must also prove Christ the mediator of all men m particu- 
lar. Hence he is here emphatically styled the man Christ Je- 
stis, to intimate unto us, that having taken upon him the nature 
common to us all, to fit him for this office, he must design it 
for the good of all who were partakers of that nature; for as he 
was a man, he surely was endued with the best of human af- 
fections, universal charitij, which would excite him to promote 
the welfare of all. As he was a man, he was subject to the 
common law of humanity, which obliges us to endeavor the 
common benefit of men." — Annot. in loc. 

Such is the annotation of Whitby, on the passage, and the 
argument is to our mind, equivalent to demonstration. Never- 
theless, the learned commentator believed in and advocated the 
doctrine of endless punishment — with which, however, his rea- 
soning is radically irreconcilable. We fully unite in his expli- 
cation of the will of God. 

But it may be objected, that the expression, God will have 
all men to he saved, simply denotes the desire of the Almighty 
that such may be the issue. That his will of desire, and will 
of purpose may be different. Well, suppose we admit for the 
sake of the argument, that it is only a will of desire, and not of 
purpose. This does not invalidate our position in the least, for 
since if it be admitted that God desires the salvation of all men, 
it must either be conceded that all men will be saved, or the 
language of Scripture be denied that testifies, "the desire of 
the righteous shall be granted," Prov. x. 24. Now, it appears 
to me that he who " openeth his hand and satisfieth the desire 
of every living thing," Psalm cxlv. 16, will certainly so ar- 
range matters as to satisfy his own. Besides: how does it con- 
sist with true theology, to allege, that the Supreme God desires 
a consummation which he has not purposed to effect ? or that 
he wills a result which he does not desire ? 

Should it be denied that God desires the salvation of all men, 



85 



one of these positions must be taken: 1st. Tiiat Cod is wholl/ 
indifferent to the fate of the children of humanity; '2d. That ho 
desires the endless wretchedness of our race; or 3d, That he 
desires the salvation of a part or portion of the human family, 
and the interminable misery of tfie rest. 

The first and second positions are exploded by the testimony 
that Jesus " gave himself a ransom" — which argues against 
indifference, and proves a Divine desire for salvation to some 
extent; and the consideration that he " gave himself a ransom 
FOR ALL," demands a reply to the question, how the one medi- 
ator could consistently give himself a ransom for a greater 
number than the one God desired to save ? 

Moreover: since Jesus "gave himself a ransom for all," it 
must be admitted that all will be restored, or we must consent 
to the appalling conclusion that Christ died in vain! But the 
Bible instructs us to believe, that our blessed Master " shall 
see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied," Isa. liii. 11 ; and 
that he who "tasted death /or a//," Heb. ii. 9, shall finally 
" subdue all things to himself, and deliver up the kingdom to 
the Father, that God may be all in all." 

Perhaps it may be urged that Jesus said of the city of Je- 
rusalem, " How often would I have gathered thy children to- 
gether," &c. " and ye would not.^^ To this we reply, that there 
is a manifest difference between saying, "I would," and "I 
will" — the very form of expression denotes that the former is 
conditional, but the latter is positive — the first is a mere de- 
sire, the latter is a determination. 

Again it may be objected, that God says he has " no plea- 
sure in the death of the wicked," and that the wicked do, nev- 
ertheless, die." We answer, that a person's pleasure may not 
always be his will — but that Being, who is infinite in wisdom, 
will not will, or determine to do that which he well knows can 
never be performed. Besides, the very passage quoted, proves 
this to be the meaning — " As I live, saith the Lord God, I 
have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wick- 
ed turn from his way and live." Ezekiel xxviii. 11. The word 
" but" is from "be-out," to leave out, to omit. The plain 
meaning of the passage is, therefore, "leaving out" that the 



86 



wicked turn from hi.s wav and live, God has no ploasure in liis 
death — or, in other words, rather than have the wicked ronam 
sinfid, he will visit them with moral death, in order that they 
may be turned from their evil way and live. Instead, there- 
fore, of being opposed to our views, this passage is decidedly 
in their favor."* 

Yet again, it may be urged that the will of God, we have 
quoted, is only his revealed will, and that he has a secret will 
in opposition to it, which will lead to a different result! We 
answer this, by asking, " How did those who urge this objec- 
tion, become acquainted v/ith this secret will.^ Why have they 
dared to reveal God's secrets? Can God be so deceptions as 
they represent him to be in this matter? But they are mistak- 
en here for the will vv'hich we have quoted, is God's secret will, 
now made known and revealed by him, through his chosen ser- 
vants. For this will of God is not merely one of desire but one 
of purpose. This is taught by the apostle; " God will have 
all men io he saved."" Besides, the testimony of the same apos- 
tle is, (Ephes, i. 9, 10,) God " Having made known [i. e. re- 
vealed] unto us the mystery of his inll [i. e. the secret of his 
will,] according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed 
in himself, that, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he 
might gather together in one, all things in Christ, both which 
are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him." Now 
this cannot refer to those that are already in Christ; for such 
are already gathered together in one — for "there is neither 
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither 
male nor female; for ye, [i. e. the believers] are all one in Christ 
Jesus. Gal. iii. 28. Again, to show that believers are already 
gathered into one body, in Christ, see Rom. xii. 4, 5; 1 Cor. 
X. 17, and xii. 12, 13 &l 20 — " For as we have many mem- 
bers in one body, and all members have not the same office; 
so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one 
members, one of another" — " For we, being many, are one 
bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one 
bread" — " For by one spirit are we all baptized into one bo- 



*^A. B. Grosh. 



87 



dy, whether we be Jews or Geiitih.',s, whether we he bond or 
free." etc. But note are l/ui/ niuiiy members, yei but one 
body." 

Thus it is to be seen, that those in Ciirist, are alnady gath- 
ered together in one, and hence the te.vt must include those 
out of Christ, as well as those in Christ — literally " all things" — 
all intelligent beings in heaven and in earth. 

Bat another objection may be presented, viz. that those in 
hell are not named, and therefore are excluded. We reply, 
that as hell is always declared in the Scriptures to be in the 
earth, so even those in hell are included. For proof that hell 
is in the earth, see Deut. xxxii. 22; (the first mention 
made of the word in our coinmon version) 2 Samuel xx. 
6; Jonah ii. 2; Psalm Ixxxvi. 13, and Prov. ix. 18, &c. Be- 
sides, Professor Stuart, of Andover, and other eminent Par- 
tialist critics, admit that the phrase "things in heaven, and 
things in the earth," is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew 
and New Testament writers, for the nnivrr^c. It is, then, the 
desire, and the pia^pose of Jeiiovah to rather together in one 
all thinos in CVirisf. It is also further stated in the next verse 
1 1th of this Ih. chapter of Ephes. thus, " In whom also we have 
obtained an inheritance being pr kdrstinated according to the 
purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his 
own will." Could we have anything stronger than this testimo- 
ny we have presented in eviderice of the will and purpose of 
God to effect the salvation of the world ? 

Now, what God willed and purposed, he sent his Son to ac- 
complish. The beloved apostle says, " We have seen and do 
testify, that the Father, sent the Son to be the Saviour of the 
world !" (I. John iv. 14.) 

Again, what God willed and purposed, and sent his Son to 
accomplish, Jesus, in accordance with the mission he received, 
faithfully undertook. He " gave himself a ransom for all, tasted 
death for every man, and is the propitiation for our sins, and 
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the w^hole world.'' 
(1. John ii. 2.) And yet again, what God willed and purposed, 
and sent his Son to accomplish, and Jesus in accordance tliere- 



88 



with mulertook, shall be fully accomplished. The great apostle 
speaks of the consummation in terms of perspicuity and force: 
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered the king- 
dom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put down 
nil rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign till he 
hatli put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall 
be destroyed is death. * * * And when all these things shall 
be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also be subject unto 
him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.'* 
(1. Cor. XV. 24 — 23.) 

We wish it to be carefully observed, here, that all enemies 
are not to be subdued by being imprisoned for eternity, or by 
placing the rebellious spirits where no further harm can result 
to the interests of Christ's Kingdom. O no ! this is not the 
subjection of Christ. A slave or rebel may be subdued in this 
manner ; chains may hang upon his body, yet still the mind 
may burn with vengeance, and the man be only outwardly sub- 
dued. This, as we before said is not the subjection of Christ, 
and if you will look at the passage last quoted, you will find that 
the text warrants the conclusion that all men are to be subdued 
by having their enmity destroyed, and becoming loilling sub- 
jects of the King of Saints. Nay, the passage presents us with 
the fact, that these enemies are to become subject unto Christ 
in the same icay that he is subject unto God. Remember He 
must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet ; and when 
fill things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also 
Himself be subject unto him. that put all things undei' him^ that 
God may be all in all.^^ God can never be all in all in a spir- 
itual sense, until all are subjected unto Christ as he is to God, 
which, in fact, the Spirit testifies. 

Another testimony with regard to the consummation of God's 
will and purpose, for which Christ was sent, and for which he 
labored, may be found in Paul's Epistle to the Romans. At the 
conclusion of the eleventh chapter, after tracing the successive 
stages of God's providence in the system of election, he makes 
it issue in the salvation of all the Jews, and all the Gentile 
world, and concludes the universal theme with the following 



89 



universal language : For God hath concluded them all in unhft- 
lief,[both Jews and Gentiles,] that he might have mercy upon all. 
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of 
God ! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past 
finding out ! For who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or 
who hath been his counsellor ? Or who hath first given to him, 
and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and 
through him ^ and 1:0 him are all things; to ichom be glory 
forever. — Amen." 

From the whole, we cannot conceive, a more connected and 
conclusive argument for the salvation of the world presented 
to the human tnind. It is clearly established, that God, in the 
plenitude of his goodnesss, first unlled the salvation of the 
world; that this will is a will of determinate purpose: that he 
sent his Son to execute his purpose ; that Jesus accordingly 
undertook the work ; and that, finally, the will, and purpose, 
and work, shall be consummated, in the subjection of all man- 
kind to the Messiah's spiritual reign, as he is to be subjected 
to the Father, who shall then be all in all, to whom be glory 
forever. 

III. Having thus spoken concerning the promises of the 
Great Jehovah, and the will of the one living and true God ; 
vve will, in the remaining time allotted us, present other pro- 
miscuous Scriptures, confirmatory of the same great truth of 
the final holiness and happiness of all mankind." 

1st. The Savior himself hath declared the universality of the 
accomplishment of man's salvation. " And I," says he, " if I 
be lifted up from the earth, will draiv all men unto we." John 
xii. 32. In this language our Lord does not intimate that he 
would draw those only to himself who in after times should be- 
lieve in his name ; but he states, positively, that he would draw 
all men unto him, if he should be lifted up from the earth. So 
soon as the condition was performed, the declaration was num- 
bered with the promises of the Lord, which ^eyea and amen. A3 
the Savior was lifted, like the serpent in the wilderness, so 
must he draw, influence, or attract all men unto him. And 
this agrees with another testimony that is written, *' The Fath- 
12 




90 



er loveth the Sun, and huth L^iveii all iliiiigs into his hand.* * * 
AH that the Father ori\ eth me sliall come to me ; and him that 
cometh to ine, / loill in no wist: cast out."' (John iii. 35; vi. 37.) 

2d. The next pae«aage we present is in tlie fifth of Romans. 
" Therefore, a;? by the offence of one, judgment came upon all 
men to condemnation ; even so by the righteou.sne.s3 of one, 
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." 
Now it is very evident that this is the idea of the apostle here, 
that the free gift unto justification is as extensive as was the 
judgment of condemnation. Aud how extensive are they ? 
Both are universal. As all men are condemned by the offence 
of one, ** EVEN so" are the same all justified (i. e. made 
just) by the other. If it is said that the free gift was only of- 
fered by these means, but that many will not accept the offer, 
we reply, that such is not the doubtful character of the apostle's 
language. Besides, we have before proved that all must be- 
come willing subjects to Christ, even as he is to be subjected 
to the Father. But the apostle's language is emphatic : " Thk 
Free Gift came upon all men," not, was offered to. Look 
also at the next verse : " For as by one man's disobedience 
many were made sinners ; so by the righteousness of one shall 
many be made righteous." How extensive is the signification 
of the term many here? How many were made sinners ? All. 
" So by the obedience of one," then, " shall all," or the 
same number, " be made righteous." And this agrees perfect- 
ly with the former verse. To be made righteous is the same 
thing as to obtain justification unto life. And the free gift 
came upon all men for this justification. The apostle contin- 
ues — " Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might a- 
bound ; but where sin abounded, grace did much more a- 
bound." Is not this a very singular expression, if, in millions 
of instances, sin is to abound over grace, and the triumph of 
sin be perpetual where grace (or favor) can never operate X The 
doctrine of unpardonable sin, and the idea of sinning away 
the day of grace," we conceive are both repulsed by this gra- 
cious testimony ; for grace must abound over sin, or this testi- 
mony is effectually repudiated. But the very next verse con- 
firms and establishes the whole. "That as sin hath reigned 



91 



unto death," [that la^ universolli/,] i:\es so miglit grace reign, 
[universally,] through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus 
Christ our Lord." We cannot discover any thing in this last 
verse which an objector can cavil on, except it be the term might. 
He may say that it is decidedly potential, and implies possibiU 
ify, power, icill, and this is all. We would direct him, then, 
to examine the 19th verse of this chapter, which has already 
been considered, where the indiratiuc shall declares this fact, 
that all shall find righteousness by Christ. We also ask him 
lo consider this whole subject, to take in all the connection, 
and say whether terms so absolutely universal, and so variously 
diversified, upon so glorious a subject, can possibly be recon- 
ciled with the limitation of God's blessings through Christ, 
upon the lapsed of Adam's race. We are satisfied that they 
cannot. 

In confirmation of the views we have here expressed, we cannot 
well refrain from introducing an extract from Clarke's Works, 
jjhowing that not only Universalists, but Parlialists, have felt 
the force of the apostle's language here, and have fairly stum- 
bled on the truth unconsciously, (at least, so it appears,^ in 
utter contradiction to their creeds. We present it at any rate, 
as an ample comment on the text. 

** As extensively, as deeply, as universally as sin, whether im- 
plying the act of transgression, or the impure principle from 
which the act proceeds, or both, hath reigned; even so, as ex- 
tensively, deeply, and universally might grace reign, [here is 
the potential,] filling the whole earth, and pervading, purify- 
ing, and refining the whole soul, through righteousness, 
through his doctrine of free salvation, unto eternal life, by Jc' 
sus Christ our Lord. Thus we find that the salvation from 
sin here, is [here is the indicative] as extensive and complete 
as the guilt and contamination of sin : death is conquered, hell 
disappointed, the devil confounded, and sin totally des- 
troyed. Here is glorying to Him that loved us, and wash- 
ed us from our sins in his own blood, and has made us kings 
and priests to God and his Father, be glory and dominion, 
forever aud ever, Amen! Hallelujah! The Lord God om- 
nipotent reigneth ! Amen and amen." 



92 



Here is the force of truth 1 and the glory of truth. Who 
could think that such an exposition of this Scripture, and 3uch 
an exclamation, would proceed from a Partialist believer in the 
endless perpetuity of sin and misery ? Yet so it is, that truth, 
which is powerful, will sometimes apparently make men forget 
their creeds, and exult in the salvation of the world. Verily, 
the good Doctor, when he penned this language, must have 
felt, not merely that he was bound for the kingdom of love 
himself, and would ask all others, " Will you go to glory with 
me ?" but by the eye of faith he was enjoying a rich foretaste 
of that blissful period, when not only he, but all the sons and 
daughters of humanity, should have arrived at the kingdom of 

glory- 

3d. We pass to the Epistle to the Corinthians. We have 
already noticed part of this testimony ; but there is still another 
passage which, with its connection asserts the universality of 
final blessedness: "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall 
all be made alive. (1. Cor. xv. 22.) If the word in the first 
instance conveys the idea of universality, so also must it in the 
second. To be made alive in Christ is to be raised to a state 
of immortality, in opposition to the mortality of those who die 
iu Adam. But is this ail? Is it only to be raised to immortal- 
ity? We; say, that it is to be raised to immortality and glory. 
For the apostle goes on to state the order of the resurrection, 
(order of time,) and in the three orders which he mentions — 
Christ the first fruits, afterward they that are Christ's at his com- 
ing, then the end, when all enemies shall be subdued unto him, 
that God may be all in all — in these three orders or successions, 
all mankind are not only included in the resurrection of immor- 
tality, but in the resurrection of glory; for as before show^n, 
they are to be subjected unto Christ as he is to the Father! 
And, further, no man has ever yet shown, or ever can show, 
that in this account of the resurrection to immortality, there is 
any limitation in number, even to the 42d verse, where we are 
instructed that " So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is 
sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory.'" And, further yet, (to 
the 49th verse,) " As we have borne the image of the earthy, 
we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." And so on till 



93 



verse 51: *' We shall all be ehaii^ed," and " Death," (verse 
54,) to every son and daughter of Adam, " is swallowed up in 
victory," and the apostle renders thanks for all, through Jesus 
Christ our Lord. 

We say no man has ever yet shown, or can show, that 
there is any limitation in numbers, from the all that die in Adam, 
to the number who shall be raised in glory and bear the imago 
of the heavenly. No, the chapter is a glorious one — yea, we 
may say the best one in the Bible — and which alone v.'ould 
render the Bible a Universalist Book. The ultimate and univer- 
sal prevalence of immortality, virtue, and happiness is thus 
plainly disclosed, and asserted with all the energy and dignity- 
worthy of the exalted theme. Let any person look it over and 
see if we are not correct. It avails nothing to say that this 
Epistle was addressed to "the church of God." We know 
this: still, i/r that Epistle, the apostle speaks of mankind at 
large, and asserts, most plainly, their resurrection to immor- 
tality and glory. 

We forbear introducing more passages of direct scripture 
testimony; not to be sure, because there are none others, for 
there are those we would be glad to present, particularly from 
the Epistles to the Phillipians, Colossians and Timothy; — but 
because we should go beyond the limits allotted us this evening. 
We have given a part only of what might be given; but we 
have aimed to present a few undoubted passages; not parables, 
but plain testimony, and trust the argument to them. We have 
given under our second division what to our minds would be 
sufficient, without any further scriptural array. "That is a 
pillar of everlasting truth. For ourself we could do with the 
very purpose of the Almighty; but when we see that purpose 
put in execution — when we see Jesus sent by the Father, and 
coming to accomplish his unalterable will — and when we see 
the END described, the grand consummation of the divine gov- 
ernment emphatically declared to embrace the ivhole in a resur- 
rection of immortality and glory, — we are more than doubly 
assured that this is Christianity — this is truth. 

Brethren and friends, permit me to exhort you to give heed 
to the inquiry of our text; " What saith the scripture?" search 



9 1 

tUo scriptures " to sec uhetfier the.se things are so;" " prove 
all things, and hold fust thai which is good/ ^ Having found the 
truth, openly profess it and faithfully practice it, and you ivill 
receive the end of your faith, the salvation of your soul." 

Amen. 



DISCUSSION, 

Part II. No. II. 

IN THE METHODIST CHURCH, APRIL 11, 1843. 

B V F. y A T E a . 



" He that is Jirst in his oim cause seemeih just, but his neigh- 
bor comelh and searcheth him.'" prov. xviii, 17. 

I HAVE chosen this text as a suitable motto for my reply to 
the discourse to which you have just listened. My opponent 
speaks of his situation as being an unpleasant one to his feel- 
ings on the previous evenings of the discussion. He may be 
assured that it was no pleasing task to his opponent to be under 
the necessity of presenting arguments a second time, which 
were deemed as conclusive proof of the question at issue, and 
have them passed by, with complaints about language used and 
the spirit manifested, - — unnoticed. 

I hope to be able to pursue a more honorable course in my 
attempts to reply to his arguments. They shall stand before 
the audience as he presents them, and when I am unable to 
meet them by fair reasoning, I will yield the point. I contend 
not for victory over an opponent, but for the defence of truth. 
I am happy to confess that on this occasion my opponent has 
taken a manly course, and his sentiments are plainly and dis- 
tinctly set forth. And I respectfully solicit the candid attention 



96 

of tivoi V individual, v\ liile ) undertake to show you that liis 
proof texts do not sustain his position. 

He remarks tliat as he is " wholly confined to the scriptures," 
he is ohligod to omit the thousand arguments" he " might 
derive tVom reason, from the workings of God's spirit on the 
renewed heart, and from God's teachings in nature." If the 
scriptures teach this doctrine, and if he can make this appear, 
this will he enough. Ail we ask is, " What saith the scripture?" 
Let him produce one declaration from the word of God that 
*' all mankind will be finally holy and happy," and we will close 
the controversy, and strike hands as brethren of the same faith. 
We believe God's word, and what that declares we will rejoice 
to acknowledge. " To the law, and to the testimony." 

I. He first introduces testimony from the Old Testament, as 
he says, to prove the " doctrinQ of the restitution of all things, 
which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets 
since the world began ; " Acts iii. 21. My opponent regards 
this text as amounting to the same as the expression that " all 
mankind will be finally holy and happy," and therefore has in- 
troduced it here instead of the question under discussion. But 
is it so? Let us read commencing with the 18th v. "But 
those things which God before had showed, by the mouth of all 
his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath fulfilled. Re- 
pent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be 
blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the 
presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which 
before was preached unto you ; whom the heavens must receive 
unlil the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spok- 
en by the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world be- 
gan. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall 
the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, like 
unto me; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he shall 
say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will 
not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed fy^om among the people/^ 
Now, if the "restitution of all things" in this text refers to 
" the final holiness and happiness of all mankind," the text, of 
course, must relate to the future state. It cannot serve his pur- 
pose unless it is applied there. But the very moment this is 



97 



admitted two points are established entirely fatal to universal- 
ism. 1 . It will be settled that Jesus Christ is to com© again. 
For, ** he shall send Jestis Christ, which before was preached 
unto you; Jfliom the heaven must receive until the times of the 
restitution of all things.'* This is plain, literal language. The 
Father " shall send Jesus Christ whom the heaven must receive 
until" this time. 2d. At this time " it shall come to pass, that 
every soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed 
from amo7ig the jyeople.'* When Jesus Christ shall come, at 
*' the times of the restitution of all things which God hath spok- 
en by the mouth of all the holy Prophets since the world began,** 
he shall destroy those who do not believe in him, and obey his 
gospel. The simple meaning of the passage is, that God will 
accomplish " all things'' which has been declared by the proph- 
ets. When he w'ill produce testimony from " all the holy 
prophets" that God will finally restore all mankind to holiness 
and happiness, and will reconcile the two points above named 
with his doctrine, I will yield the point. 

I now come to the testimony which he has produced from 
the Old Testament to prove his doctrine that all mankind will 
be finally holy and happy. It is Genesis xxii. 18, " In thy seed 
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." By quoting the 
renewal of this promise first made to Abraham, to Jacob, and 
the mention of it by Peter, he makes it read, " In thy seed 
shall all the nations, families and kindreds of the earth be bless- 
ed." It is evident that the terms families, and kindreds are 
used instead of nations, and mean the same thing. He has 
discoursed at some length on this promise, and he evidently re- 
gards it as one of his strongest proof texts. 

We will now attend to his remarks on this text, and see if 
they are in accordance with Bible truth. 

1. He first contends that the promise is universal, and intro- 
duces an extract from Dr. Clarke to show that ''Partialists are 
constrained to acknowledge the universality of this language." 
For my part I am not at all " constrained" on this point, but I 
rejoice to admit it. But does this argue that all men will be fi- 
nally holy and happy? By no means. " It is perfectly easy to 
conceive that all the nations of the earth, and all families of the 

13 



98 



earth can be blessed with the gospel ofChiibt, without suppos- 
ing that every individual of all nations must consequently be 
saved. We as a nation, are now blessed with the gospel, or 
are blessed in the seed of Abraham, but every individual of our 
nation is not blessed with personal salvation," But more of 
this hereafter. 

2. He next proceeds to notice two objections to his use of 
this text. The first objection, that these promises are not gos- 
pel promises I do not urge. I admit that they are gospel prom- 
ises, or promises realized in the gospel. So far we agree — but 
now comes the point at issue. He contends the promises are 
wholly imconditional, but I shall contend, and hope to be able 
to maintain that they are conditional. It is understood of course, 
that the blessing promised here is Christ particularly. So far 
as the promise of his advent is concerned, I grant it is uncon- 
ditional. He was to come, and he did come; and "by the 
grace of God he tasted death for every man." And by his 
death all nations were brought into such a state as that God 
can now " be just and the justifier of him which belie veth in 
Jesus," (Rom. iii. 26.) So far the promise is universal and 
unconditional ; but justification from sin is conditional — holi- 
ness is conditional, whether present or future. These are the 
blessings brought to view in this promise in Jesus Christ, as 
the scriptures will plainly show. 

Before noticing his arguments on the unconditionality of sal- 
vation, I wish to make a few remarks that I desire our hearers 
to bear in mind. My opponent has based this argument on the 
supposition that Jesus Christ is the author of the unconditional 
salvation of all men. Or rather, he has labored to establish 
this point. Now let it be remembered that he denies the doc- 
trine of atonement by Jesus Christ altogether. He does not 
believe that Christ saves us from a single pang of deserved 
punishment in this life. Every man must at all events, suffer 
all his sins deserve before he can be saved. (Wonder if there 
is any condition here?) According to his theory, Christ can- 
not save us from the commission of sin, for we must all sin as 
long as we live. He does not save us from future punishment, 
for we are not threatened with any punishment after death. In 



99 



what sense tlien is Christ our Savior? If he undertakes to 
prove that all Jiien will be saved through Christ, it is devolving 
upon him to show us how. I will here ask my opponent one 
plain question, and request from him a definite answer in his 
next. In what sense does Chnst save us from our sinSy if not 
from the commission of sin, or for punishment due for sins already 
committed! If he assures us that Jesus Christ will save all 
men, he ought to tell us how. It may be that he has changed 
his views on the atonement since our discussion in the school 
house, if so, his present course will appear the more consistent. 
At any rate, it will be rather unfortunate for him to come for- 
ward notv and deny the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of 
Christ, for it will entirely destroy his whole argument, on 
which he now relies so confidently. 

But waiving this inconsistency, we will now notice his argu- 
ments, or what he may call arguments, to prove that our salva- 
tion is unconditionally secured in Jesus Christ. 1. He thinks 
our salvation must be unconditional, because " there is nothing 
in the promises themselves that is conditional." I have admitted 
that the promise in question is unconditional in a qualified sense. 
But so far as our salvation is concerned, I shall show you pre- 
sently that it is conditional. 2. He remarks that " these prom- 
ises are either unconditional, or else God's veracity is impeach- 
ed. To say that faith is any part of the condition is the veriest 
absurdity. For the promise is the very thing to be believed." 
He acknowledges that men ought to believe, but that the prom- 
ise is true whether we believe it or not. His argument amounts 
to this : God has promised to bless all nations in Jesus Christ. 
This promise is unconditional and absolute. All men are re- 
quired to believe that they have eternal life in Christ ; but if 
no one should ever believe this, they have it in store for them 
nevertheless ! I wish here to point out two errors which my 
opponent has fallen into. The first is in supposing that the 
blessing promised is the final salvation of all men in Jesus 
Christ. 

Secondly, that a mere assent to this truth is the faith requir- 
ed in the gospel. These are the very points to be proved be- 



100 



fore hifl conclusions can be legitimcite. The fallacy of this argu- 
ment consists in supposing that men are required to believe that 
they have eternal life unconditionally given them in Jesus Christ. 
That there is eternal life in Jesus Christ we admit ; but that it 
is unconditionally given to sinners, or that they arc uncondi- 
tionally made partakers of it we deny. The simple facts are 
these ; there is life in Jesus Christ, life for all who will accept 
of it on gospel terms ; but in order that the sinner may be 
made the partaker of this life he must believe and be connect- 
ted with Christ by faith, as a branch is connected with the vine. 
"I am the vine, ye are the branches : If a man abide not in me 
he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and men gath- 
er them and cast them into the fire, and they are 
burned." John xv. 5, 6. From this it must appear, that though 
there is life in Christ, yet it cannot save the sinner, who does 
not believe in him, any more than the life and nourishment 
which is in the vine can preserve the branch, when severed 
from it. There is life in Jesus Christ, but what good can this 
do that class of sinners of whom Christ says ye will not 
come unto me that ye might have life," John v. 40. 

That gospel faith is something more than the assent of the 
mind to certain truths is clear from James ii. 19 — 22. Thou 
believest there is one God ; thou doest well : the devils also 
believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that 
faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father 
justified by works, when he offered Isaac his son upon the al- 
tar ? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and hy 
works was faith made perfect Here we see how Abraham 
was saved. He obeyed God. And Jesus Christ being made 
perfect, became the author of eternal salvation to all them 
that obey him^ (Heb. v. 9.) 

But my opponent says, to say that faith is any part of the 
condition of the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham, 
" is the veriest absurdity." He refers to Gal. iii. to show that 
it is a gospel promise, and I will refer to the same chapter to 
prove that so far as it relates to us it is conditional. I will read 
the entire chapter. [See the place.] 



101 



What can be plainer than that Paul makes our participation 
in the blessing promised to Abraham, depend upon the condition 
of faith ? If there is absurdity in this, is not Paul chargeable 
with it? The apostle most clearly makes a conditional appli- 
cation of this promise, showing that none can enjoy the blessing 
of Abraham, who are not imitators of his faith. Let us hear 
him again, Rom. iv. 11, 22, 23, 24. '* He [Abraham] received 
the sign of circumcision, as a sea! of the righteousness of the 
faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be 
the father of all them that believe. And therefore it was im- 
puted to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for 
his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to 
whom it shall be imputed, if w e believe ok him who rais- 
ed vp Jesus our Lord from the dead.^' Look again at the 
testimony of Gal. iii. " So then, they which he of faith are 
blessed with faithful Abraham. For ye are all the children 
of God BY FAITH iu Jcsus Christ; and if we be Christ's, 

THEN ARE YE ABRAHAm's SEED, AND HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE 

PROMISE." These quotations from the apostle clearly show 
that the promise of God to Abraham was conditional, so far as 
it related to the salvation of individual sinners, and that none 
but believers can be Abraham's children, and heirs with him 
of the promised blessings. But my opponent says the promi- 
ses are confirmed by the oath of God. This is granted, but 
it does nothing towards proving the salvation of all men, since 
no one contends for the doctrine of endless punishment, on 
the ground that the covenant will be violated on the part of 
God. The oath of God renders the covenant sure for its true 
intent and purposes, but we have abundantly shown that it con- 
tains conditions to be complied with on the part of man; and 
by a non-compliance with these, the sinner may forfeit his in- 
terest in it, and come short of the promised blessing, though 
God remain ever true to his word. He quotes Heb. vi. 17, 18' 
"Wherein God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs 
of promise, the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an 
oath; that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible 
for God to lie, we mii^ht have a stronn; consolation, who have fled 



102 

Ibr rol*u:^e to lay hold on the hope set before us." It cannot 
he overlooked th it this text lunits the object of the oath to 
those who flee to lay hold on the hope set before them ; hence, 
the oatli of God secures the blessintr to no others. We ask, 
then, have all men lied to lay hold on this hope ? This can- 
not be pretended. True believers in Christ Jesus only have 
done this. Swearers, liars, drunkards^ and infidels have not 
fled to lay hold on the hope that is set before them. Until it 
be proved that all men embrace the gospel, and by faith lay 
hold on the hope it holds out to our fallen race, this text can 
prove nothing in favor of universalism ; but this point cannot 
be proved of many, the words of Christ are as true now 
as when he uttered them, " Ye will not come unto me that ye 
might have life." 

1 trust it is now shown conclusively that this promise furn- 
ishes no support to universalism, but when properly understood 
it presents an unanswerable argument against the doctrine of 
the final holiness of all mankind, inasnmch as it makes our sal- 
vation in Jesus Christ conditional. It will not answer for him 
to say that the salvation treated of by the apostle relates to this 
life, for he has already applied it to the future state ; and by 
that means has put a weapon into my hands with which to de- 
molish his whole system. 

If he would like to have a little more on conditions, he may 
reconcile the following texts with his doctrine of unconditional 
salvation ; and when he has done this, I will furnish him with 
another chapter : — John iii. 16. " For God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 
him, should not perish hut have everlasting life, — Heb. v. 9. 

And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal sal- 
vation to all them thcd obey him.'" 

II. His second argument in favor of the final holiness and 
happiness of all mankind is founded on the will of God, as 
taught in the New Testament. He takes for his proof text 
1 Timothy ii. 3, 4. " For this is good and acceptable in the 
sight of God, who will have all men to be saved, and come un- 
to the knowledge of the truth." — 1 cheerfully admit that it is 



103 



the will of God to save nil men. 1 rejoice to ackiiowedge all 
that the text asserts. It will not be necessary, therefore, to 
notice his long argument to prove this poini. The question at 
isstie now, is this: Is God's will done in reference to the hu- 
man family ? If I can show that the will of God is not done 
uou^ in reference to the conduct and condition of men, I think 
it will be rather difficult for my opponent to prove that his will 
respecting their final salvation will be accomplished. 

In support of the position that the will of God is not now 
done, I remark, 

1. God has given to man a law, which of course is his will 
to man ; for the law is the will of the law-giver : It is made 
known to us that God wills our salvation, yea, the salvation of 
all men, but not irrespectfully of their moral agency. He wills 
the salvation of all men on gospel terms ; but all men as moral 
agents do not comply with the terms of the gospel. My oppo- 
nent admits that it is the duty of all men to believe in Christ 
now. Yes, this is the will of God that all men should now be 
saved " and come to the knowledge of the truth." But all do 
not believe — all men have not come to the knowledge of the 
truth ; therefore the will of God is not done even in the sense 
of the text. This text as clearly proves that it is the will of 
God that all men should " Come unto the knowledge of the 
truth," as it does that he wills that all men should be saved. 
Now, it is clear that all men do not " come unto tiie knowledge 
of the truth ;" and those w^ho defeat the will of God in this res- 
pect, will also find it defeated in its purposes of their salvation. 

2. Plain matter-of-fact, both from observation and scripture 
testimony, shows us that the will of God is not done. 

It is the plain will of God that men shall notmurder, yet they 
fJo murder — that men shall not lie, yet they do lie — that they 
shall do as they would be done by, but they do it not. So we 
might go through the whole catalogue of precepts, and find that 
they are all disregarded by men every where. In every instance 
of transgression the will of God is not done. Here is plain 
matter-of-fact, and " facts are stubborn things." But the scrip- 
tures furnish instances in which the will of God, and the will 
of man is in opposition, and the will of man prevails. 



104 



The luinentatioa of Clirist over Jerusalem is lo the point. 

How oft irould 1 have gathered i\iy children together, but ye 
ivould iiotJ' Aly opponent has noticed this text, in the follow- 
ing manner : " To this we reply, that tlicre is a manifest dift'- 
erence between saying "1 would," and "Twill" — the very 
form of expression denotes that the former is conditional, but 
the latter positive — the first a mere desire, the other a de- 
termination." 

In reply to this, I remark, 

i. There is an admission here that the will of God, so far as 
desire is concerned, has failed. 2. This " manifest differ- 
ence" does not exist between this text and the one 1 Timothy 
ii. 4. God does not say that he will save all men, neither does 
the apostle say that God will save all men. It is evident that 
it was God's will to save the people of Jerusalem, and he sent 
Jesus Christ to do his will. He labored for their salvation, ac- 
cording to the will of God, but they " irould not'' receive him, 
though it was the will of God that they should receive him. 
It was God's will to save them, just as it is his will to save all 
men, " but the very form of expression denotes it to be condi- 
tional.'^ So his will may not be undone, or it may be done. 
Thus his argument destroys itself. 

God wills the salvation of all men — now, and that they 
>^hould come to the knowledge of the truth, as the means of 
effecting it, but all men are not now saved. It is said to the 
Laodiceans, Rev, iii. 15, " / ?^owZrf that thou wert either cold 
or hot;" but they were neither. Here God plainly declares 
that they were not what he would that they were ; hence, his 
will was frustrated in the moral character of this luke-warm 
church. It is useless to spend time to prove that the will of 
God is not done in all things by man ; for every sin is a viola- 
tion of the divine will. God has given us his commands and 
what he has commanded, he wills that men should do; but men 
do them not. " The law that speaks in deep toned thunders 
from the cloudy summit of Sinai, and the gospel that breathes 
a pardon upon the repenting sinner, in the^milder voice of a 
crucified Redeemer, alike declare that the will of God has 
been violated." 



105 



We will now examine his scripture testimony to prove that 
all men will be saved, because God wills the salvation of all 
men. I regard what h*is already been said, a sufficient reply to 
the argument drawn from the will of God, but I wish to notice 
these texts for the purpose of showing that they furnish no sup- 
port to his doctrine. In proof that God desires the salvatioa 
of all men, (which I readily admit,) he quotes the following 
passage : " He [Christ] gave himself a ransom for all;" and 
adds, " since Jesus ' gave himself a ransom for all,' it must be 
admitted that all will be restored, or we must come to the ap- 
paling conclusion that Christ died in vain!" 

My opponent has introduced several texts which ifjp^^ of our 
redemption by Jesus Christ to prove that all men will be saved. 
Indeed, his whole argument drawn from the promises of God, 
and from the will of God, rests for its support on the doctrine 
that the death of Christ is the procuring cause of our salva- 
tion, — a doctrine which he denied in toto but a few weeks 
since. In a late meeting with my opponent in a certain school 
house, I presented the doctrine of atonement as an argument 
in support of the doctrine of endless punishment, I laid down 
the following proposition : 

The atonement made by Jesus Christ argues that man was 
in a lost state, and must have remained so for ever without it ; 
and also that the proper penalty of the law of God is endless 
death. I then introduced scripture to prove that Christ " bore 
our sins in his own body on the tree" — that he gave him- 
self for us that he might redeem us" — that he tasted death 
for every man." Then my opponent denied that the sufferings 
of Christ were vicarious. According to his theory, man never 
lost the favor of God, never lost his right to heaven, — was 
never exposed to future punishment, — he must suffer all that 
his sins deserve here, and yet he talks about Christ's giving 
himself a ransom for all ! !" Here he has given me another 
weapon with which to overthrow his system. 

The English word ransom, contained in the above text, is 
thus defined by Dr. Webster. 

Ransom, n. 1. The money or price paid for the redemption 
14 



106 



©f a prisoner oi- slave, or for goods captured by an enemy. 2. 
Release from captivity, bondage or the possession of an enemy. 
3. In laiv a sum paid for the pardon of s©me great offence and 
the discharge of the offender ; or a fine paid in heu of corporal 
punishment, 4. In scripture, the price paid for a forfeited life, 
or for delivering or release from capital punishment. 5. The 
price paid for procuring the pardon of sins, and the redemption} 
of the sinner from punishment." 

If then Christ " gave himself a ransom for all," in the above 
sense there is no room for further controversy. The text teach- 
es that he has ransomed sinners from the bondage of sin and 
the punish Jipnt to which they are subjected by the divine law^ 
by paying his life a price for theirs. But the argument on the 
conditionality of salvation will show that the benefits of the a- 
tonement, so far as the personal salvation of moral agents is^ 
concerned, are conditional. 

Now we inquire whose system is it that makes Christ's death 
ip vain.'* On the theory of my opponent, the death of Christ 
does not save us from sin in this life, any further than 
his doctrine and example would have done without his death. 
It does not save us from the punishment of sin, for all must suf- 
fer all that their sins deserve ; and besides it w^ould be unjust 
for the innocent to suffer in the place of the guilty. Neither 
does his death save us from endless deaths for no one was ever 
exposed to it. From what then does the death of Christ save 
us? Wliy, from — nothing! And thus we are led to " the ap- 
paling conclusion that Christ died in vain!" 

With these views of the atonement, with what propriety can 
he argue the final salvation of all men on the ground of Christ'* 
death ? until he can reconcile these difficulties his argument de- 
stroys itself. 

Next in course we find certain objections anticipated and an- 
swered, which refer to the will of God being done. I have al- 
ready noticed his remarks on the lamentations of Christ over 
Jerusalem. — The next objection which he attempts to answer, 
is the text in Ezek. xxxiii 41. His remarks on this text present 
such a rare specimen of logic and criticism that I will not deny 
our hearers the pleasure of listening to them again. Here they 
are entire t — 



107 



*' Again it may be objected, that God savs he has no plea- 
sure in the death of the wicked; and that the wicked do, nev- 
ertheless die. We answer, that a person's pleasure may not 
always be his will — but that Being who is infinite in wisdom 
will not tvill or determine to do that which he well knows can 
never be performed. Besides, the very passage quoted, proves 
this to be the meaning. As I live, saitli the Lord God, I have 
no pleasure in the death of the vrickcd, but that the wicked turn 
from his Vvay and live, Ezekiel xxxiii. 11. The word ' but' is 
from ' be-out,' to leave out, to omit. The plain meaning of 
the passage is, therefore, ' leaving out' that the v/icked turn 
from his way and live, God has no pleasure in his death, or, in 
other words, rather than have the wicked re^nahi sinful, he will 
visit them with moral death, in order that they may be turned 
from their evil way and live. Instead, therefore, of being op- 
posed to our views, this passage is decidedly in their favor. 

I don't know how I can better this. I v/ill just present the 
whole verse, and leave our hearers to judge of its " plain mean- 
ing." " Say unto theoi, as I live, saith the Lord God, I have 
no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked 
turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye, from your evil icay ; 
for ivliy will ye die, O house of IsraelV^ My opponent says, 
"rather tiian have the wicked remain sinful, God will visit 
them with moral death; in order that they may be turned from 
their evil way and live!" I must confess, this is a new idea to 
me. I never before learned that God must first visit the sin- 
ner with moral death in order that he might live!! Surely, if 
this is God's method of salvation, I shall be obliged to give up 
beat, for as all have been " visited with moral death," all will 
consequently be saved. But the scriptures tell us that "the 
soul that sinneth it shall die," — " the w^ages oi sin is death, "- 
" sin when it is finished bringeth forth death." Now if moral 
death is a visitation from God, and sin is the instrument which 
effects this death, then it follows that God is the author of sin! 
Is this according to the law and the testimony.'' 

To prove that God has purposed to save all men, he introdu- 
ces Eph. i. 9, 10. " Having made known to us the mystery of 
his will, according as he had purposed in himself; That in the 
dispensation of the fulness of tunes, he might gather together 



108 



in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which 
are on earth; even in him." The plain meaning of this text is, 
that the Christian Church is not to be limited to the Jews, but 
that God hath purposed that the Gentiles also are to come to 
Christ, and share in the blessings of the gospel. This will be 
seen by turning to chapter iii. 4, 5, 6, " Whereby, when ye 
read, ye may understand my knowledge in the imjstery of 
Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons 
of man, as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and proph- 
ets by the spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of 
the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ.'''' The same 
promise is referred to here, that was made to Abraham, and 
our hearers will remember that it does not prove the uncondi- 
tional salvation of all men. But it may be urged that the text 
speaks of gathering "together all things in Christ." I reply 
that this cannot prove that all will be saved; for my opponent 
admits that the phrase "all things" does not mean all men. 
He says it " cannot refer to those that are already in Christ." 

My opponent, in noticing the objection that those in hell are 
not named in this gathering, replies, that "hell is always de- 
clared in scripture to be in this earth." This declaration comes 
with rather an ill grace at this time, for I presume our hearers 
recollect that I proved on the last evening of the discussion^ 
that the Savior threatened with the punishment of hell after the 
death of the body; and this argument he did not meet. 

He quotes Eph. i. 11, as proof that God will save all men, 
but this stands in connection with the preceding verses already 
noticed, and can mean nothing more. So far as the plan of 
salvation in Jesus Christ is concerned, He " works all things 
after the counsel of his own will." This salvation has been 
proved to be conditional. 

I will here make a remark concerning the ivill and purposes 
of God. There is, as my opponent has remarked, a manifest 
difference between his ivill as it respects desire, and his abso- 
lute purposes. The former is what we have proved may be 
frustrated, but the latter cannot fail. God's purposes are seen 
in his law, and in the fundamental principles of the gospel. 
His law is given to moral agents^ as a rule of moral action. 
He has joined to his law a penalty. This law has been Wola- 



109 



ted, and consequently, men are exposed to its penalty. Thi'* 
penalty is death. Jesus Christ has " tasted deatk tor [or in- 
stead of] every man;" and the purpose of God in reference to 
our salvation is now brought to view in this text: " God so lov- 
ed the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoev- 
er believeth i/i him, should not jyensh, but have everlasting Ufc.^' 
He purposes that he that believeth shall be saved — and he that 
believeth not shall be damned." 

The remarks of my opponent the other evening about the 
signs that follow them that believe, I presume, were apprecia- 
ted by the audience. All must know that they (the signs) re- 
lated particularly to apostolic age, as evidences of the truth of 
their mission, while the text remains as the statute law of the 
gospel, — "He that believeth shall be saved, and he that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned." Thus it will be seen that the ab- 
solute purposes of God are opposed to the unconditional salva- 
tion of all men. 

His quotation from 1 . Cor. xv. to prove the final subjection 
of all men in a spiritual sense, I think, will be found as fatal to 
his cause as his other proof texts. I will quote a little more 
than my opponent has — enough to give the obvious meaning of 
the passage. I will commence with the 21st v. " For since 
by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the 
dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
made alive. But every man in his own order ; Christ the first 
fruits, afterwards they that are Chrisfs at his coming. Then 
cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom 
to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule 
and all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath 
put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be 
destroyed is death.'" 

On this text I submit the following remarks : — 
1. The death and resurrection of the body only is treated of 
in this chapter. Not one word said in all this " glorious chap- 
ter" about "the final holiness and happiness of all mankind." 
It assures us that all will have a resurrection, but it is not once 
said that all shall be made holy and happy. But I shall show 
you that it teaches the contrary doctrine. 



I 

110 

2. The text teaches that Jesus Christ is to make his second 
advent at the end of this world — a doctrine entirely fatal to 
the theory of my opponent. Speaking of the order of the re- 
surrection the apostle says, " Christ the fwst fruits, afterward 
THEY THAT ARE Christ's AT HIS CoMiNG." This, my Oppo- 
nent says, is literal language. If so the resurrection of the 
righteous must take place when Christ comes. It is certain 
that he must make his personal appearance at the time of the 
resurrection. This is plainly asserted by the same apostle in 
"plain, literal language," 1 Thess. iv. 16. "For the Lord 
HIMSELF shall descend from heaveji ivilh a shout^wilh the voice of an 
archangel, and with the trump of God ; and the dead in Christ 
shall rise first. ''^ Thus his proof text bears on its very face a 
doctrine which he has positively denied in the course of this 
discussion, and which destroys his whole theory! Let this be 
remembered. 

3. At the coming of Christ here spoken of, his enemies 
shall be " put under his feet." This my opponent assumes is a 
" spiritual and willing subjection to Christ." This is entirely 
without evidence. On the contraiy, it is plain this subjection 
is not voluntary, but that it is the subjection of enemies to des- 
troy them. They are pid under his feel.'^ This does not im- 
ply their restitution. An enemy may be subdued vrithout being 
restored to favor. " The apostle," says Mr. Isaac, " here un- 
doubtedly alludes to the custom of conquerors treading on the 
necks of their enemies. The captains of Joshua put their feet 
on the necks of the five kings they had subdued; but it was 
preparatory to their destruction, not to their restoration." 
Other scriptures which speak of the transactions to take place 
at the time of the resurrection will fully confirm this view of 
the subject. We will introduce Matt. xiii. 36 — 43. Let it 
be remembered that this is not a parable, but the explanation of 
a parable. "And his disciples came unto him, saying. De- 
clare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answer- 
ed and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is th e 
Son of man: the field is the world: the good seed are the chil- 
dren of the kingdom ; but the tares are the children of the wick- 
ed one. The enemy that sowed them is the devil : the harvest 



Ill 



is the end of the world; and the reapers are tlie angels. A>* 
therefore tlie tares are gathered and burnt in the tiie; yo shall 
it be in the end of this world. Tiie Son of man shall send forth 
his angels, and they shall gatlier out of his kingdom all things 
which offend, and tliem w^hich do iniqnity, and shall cast them 
into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailin«x and sfnashing of 
teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the 
kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him 
hear." 

This is Christ's explanation of his own parable, and it clear- 
ly teaches what the subjection of his enemies will be at the res- 
urrection. Matt. XXV. 31 — 46, teaches the same doctrine, 
notwithstanding ail that my opponent has said to the contrary. 
In my first article I urged seven objections to his application 
of it, which were so many arguments in favor of mine, since no 
one contends for a third application of it. These arguments 
he did not meet. In ray last I repeated four of them at great- 
er length, which I consider as unanswerable arguments in fav- 
or of a general judgment, when these events will take place 
mentioned in 1 Cor. xv. Again, Christ plainly teaches, John 
V. 28, 29, that all will not come forth to spiritual life at the res- 
urrection; " The hour is coming, in the which all that are in their 
graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that 
have done good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have 
done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." This is " plain, 
literal language." — That God's enemies will be destroyed, 
and not made holy at the coming of Christ, is evident from the 
"plain, literal language" of Paul, 2 Thess. i. 7 — 9, ''When 
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty 
angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know 
not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus 
Christ; luho shall be punishe.d with everlasting destruction from 
the 'presence of the Lord, and from the glonj of his power. ''^ I 
must still urge this as one of my proof texts, for my opponent 
has not proved his application of it. It confirms the doctrine 
of his proof text in Corinthians, that Christ is to come at the 
resurrection, while it clearly shows what the subjection of his 
enemies will be. Thus far his arguments turn against his own 
system with resistless force. 



112 



I would like to say much more on this chapter, but time will 
not allow it. Enough however, to show this chapter, instead of 
being sufficient to render "the Bible a Universalist Book," 
rears its unyielding front against his doctrine, and boldly bids 
defiance to all his sophistry. 

III. I must notice his " promiscuous scriptures" very brief- 
ly, for the want of time. His first text is in John xii. 3*2. 
" And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto 
me." My opponent remarks on this text, that Christ states 
positively, that he would draw all men unto him., if he should 
be lifted up from the earth. So soon as the condition was per- 
formed, the declaration was numbered with the promises of the 
Lord, which are yea and amen. Here we have it again, — the 
salvation of men depends on the death of Christ." What far- 
ther proof need we of the falsity of a system, when one argu- 
ment adduced in its favor necessarily destroys another ? But 
this text does not prove the unconditional salvation of all men, 
as the Savior plainly shows, John iii. 14, 15. " And as Moses 
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of 
Man be lifted up : that whosoever helieveth in him shoidd not 
perish, hut have eternal lifeJ' We will let this testimony der 
cide the question. 

2d. His next scripture is Rom. v. " Therefore, as by the 
offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, 
even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon 
all men unto justification of life." I would be glad, if time 
would permit, to discuss at large the important doctrines of this 
chapter, but I must content myself with a very few remarks at 
this time. In this chapter are clearly and distinctly brought 
to view doctrines which my opponent will not allow for a mo- 
ment. For instance, that through the offence of Adam death 
and condemnation have passed upon all men. Universalists 
deny that death in any sense is in consequence of Adam's 
transgression. Now let us look at the last verse, about which 
he talks so smartly, and on which Dr. Clarke's remarks are 
made, which he has quoted. " That as sin hath reigned unto 
death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto 
eternal life, hy Jesus Christ our Lord^ Now nothing is plain- 



113 



er than that " death" on the one hand is as extensive as " eter- 
nal Vfi^' on the other, consequently, if we do not obtain " eter- 
nal life by Jesus Christ," eternal death must be our portion. 
Eternal death, therefore, is the effect of sin. Will he admit 
this 1 How can he avoid it with the use he has made of this 
text ? Let him answer. Dr. Clarke, in the very extract he 
has read, remarks, that sin " hath reigned, subjected the whole 
earth and all its inhabitants, the whole soul, and all its powers 
and faculties, unto death, temporal of the body, spiritual of the 
soul, and eternal of both." We might show also, that the vi- 
carious sufferings of Christ are clearly taught in this chapter. 
" Christ died for [instead OF] the i/ngodli/.''^ Indeed, his 
argument depends on this — Does he admit it? We shall 
see. The chapter teaches us that through " the free gift" the 
original curse is so far removed, that all men are now justified" 
in relation to it, — so that those who die in infancy, or, those 
who do not involve personal condemnation, are unconditionally 
snved in Jesus Christ ; and such as are thus condemned, may 
be "justified through faith." And also, by means of Christ's 
death, all shall have a resurrection. That personal offenders 
are justified, or saved conditionally, is evident from verse 1. 

Being justified b?/ faith, we h^ve peace with God, through 
our Lord Jesus Christ." 

If he will risk his system with a full investigation of this 
chapter, he can give it a prominent place in his rejoinder. I 
am apprehensive the result would be fatal to his cause. 

I have now examined his proof texts, as far as my limits 
would permit, and I will leave our hearers to decide if he has 
proved that " all mankind will be finally holy and happy." 
Have I not dearly demonstrated his very proof texts are all 
fatal to his doctrine ? You are the judges. I hdise proved 
that the promise made to Abraham is conditional as it respects 
our salvation. If this is farther disputed, the controversy is 
with St. Paul — not with me. It has been proved that God has 
not willed or determined the unconditional salvation of the hu- 
man family, but the contrary. Thus, I think, the candid will 
decide. With the prayer that God will guide me and my op- 
ponent, with our hearers, to a saving knowledge of the truth, 
I close these remarks. — Amen, 

15 



DISCUSSION, 



Part II. No. III. 



IN THE METHODIST CHURCH, APRIL 25, }843. 



BY E. FRANCIS. 



/ am set for the defence of the gospel."" 

TEXT — PHIUPPIANS 1. 17. 

I HAVE deemed this a fitting motto, for the remarks I have 
to present to your notice this evening. It was my object, on a 
former occasion, to produce a few scripture testimonies of the 
gospel. Those my brother attempted to refute by three argu- 
ments, namely, (1.) That the promises of the gospel, made to the 
patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, are conditional ; (2.) That 
although it is the will of God that all men shall be saved, yet 
that will, will not be accomplished : and (3) that the resurrec- 
tion the Savior taught, and about which the apostles wrote, — 
to immortality and glory, — was only the raising of the body 
from the grave to life. 

As, therefore, " I am set for the defence of the gospel," it 
becomes my duty to notice these arguments, like a true soldier 
of the cross, wielding " the sword of the spirit which is the 
word of God." 

It will not be out of place, should I remark — that the word 
Gospel, signifies good news, glad tidings. 



115 



In order that no wrong impression may be held by those who 
listen to this discussion, I wish to remark once more that this 
discussion was not of my seeking. My brother borrowed for 
his text the same passage in the Book of Proverbs, that I used 
in ray first reply to him. Thus it will be seen that " He that 
is first in his own cause seemeth just, but his neighbor cometh 
and searcheth him," — applies not tome, in this discussion, 
but to my brother. 

He complains that he presented arguments in support of his 
awful sentiment of endless wo, a second time, but I did not so 
much as notice them. I will notice this lamentation no farth- 
er, than to say that I am willing to submit all I have advanced, 
to the candid judgments of our honest hearers. I prefer that 
they should decide this matter for themselves, and not that I 
should set up mine one notion as infallible ;■ and for fear that 
they should not conclude with me, after the subject is before 
them, take upon myself the bold presumption of telling them 
just how much I have done ! ! There are some people in this 
world who are fond of exhibiting the spirit of boasting Jehu, 
saying, " come see what I can do ;" such would do well to 
learn modesty from those who had charge of their early years ; 
and also to imitate the spirit of him who was "meek and low- 
ly of heart." 

I. My brother's remarks upon the passage in Acts iii. 21, 
where Peter speaks of " the times of the restitution of all 
things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy 
prophets since the world began ;" need not be examined, as I 
did not present it as one of my proof texts. 

The first scripture testimony I quoted in proof of the final 
holiness and happiness of all mankind ;" was the promise made 
by the great Jehovah to Abraham, renewed to Isaac, and con- 
firmed to Jacob, (Genesis xxii. 18; xxvi. 4; xxviii. 14.) that in 
their seed shall all the nations, families and kindreds (Acts 
iii. 25.) of the earth be blessed." 

The universality of this promise, my brother says — 1 re- 
joice to admits So then we agree that all, every individual, 
who belongs to any nation, family or kindred, however far gone 
in heathen darkness, superstition and sin he may be, shall be 



1 16 

blessed according to the promise ; for none will argue that there 
are individuals who belong not to some fumily, to some kin- 
dred, or some nation ! My brother also agrees with me that 
the promises are gospel or glad tidings promises. But he be- 
lieves that they are conditional, or rather he tells us that they 
are both i^wconditional and conditional. 

Before noticing this position I will glance at some remarks 
he saw fit to make in this connection, in which he attempted 
to bring in certain views I advanced concerning the atonement 
previous to this discussion ; by so doing he has clearly exhibit- 
ed his ignorance of my views of the atonement, or else has 
grossly misrepresented me. As, however, I have heretofore 
said nothing upon this matter in the discussion, I will only re- 
mark, that when the doctrine of a vicarious atonement is the 
theme of dispute, I shall not fail to sustain my own views from 
the scriptures. ' - — 

My brother says, I will here ask my opponent one plain 
question, and request from him a definite answer in his next. 
In what sense does Clwist save us from our sins, if not from the 
commission of sin, or from punishment due for sins already com' 
mitied 1 If he assures us that Jesus Christ will save all men, 
he ought to tell us how J' 

I reply, that this is not the place to discuss these questions. 
If I can produce testimony from the Holy Bible that Christ Je- 
sus shall save his people — all that the Father hath given him — 
from their sins ; it is sufficient so far as our main question is 
concerned. If all men are to be saved, we need have no fears 
but successful means will be put in operation to accomplish 
this object, by the infinite Ruler of the universe. 

But to the argument for the conditionalitj of the promises. 
My brother says, " It is understood of course that the blessing 
promised here is Christ particularly. So far as the promise of 
his advent is concerned, I grant it is unconditional. He was 
to come, and he did come; and by the grace of God tasted 
death for every man, &lc." " But justification from sin is con- 
ditional — holiness is conditional, whether present or fijture. 
These are the blessings brought to view in this promise in Je- 
sus Christ, as the scriptures will plainly show." I reply, that 



117 



Christ is indeed the blo.ssing proiniyed, and the proof that he 
is the blessing, I before presented from Matt. i. '2\ , " Thou shall 
call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins;" 
and again Acts iii. the apostle testifies to the Jews that in ac- 
cordance with the promise God sent his son to bless, " m 
turning away every oxe from his i.\iq,uities" i. e. in saving 
EVERY INDIVIDUAL "FROM HIS sixs." My brother will not 
assert that this passage in Acts iii. 26, has reference only to 
the Jewish nation, as being blessed in this life, since it cannot 
be shown that every oxe of that people were then, or are xoav 
TURNED AWAY FROM THEIR INIQUITIES. The preceding verse 
answers the question who are to be blessed in Christ ; which 
testimony is, that God covenanted with Abraham, saying, 
''And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth he 
blessed.^^ Is there any condition expressed or implied here? 
I can discover none. If there is, will my brother point it out 
distinctly ? It teaches that Christ shall bless the whole human 
family in turning every one from his iniquities.'" If it can be 
shown that one of our race m^U not eventually be turned from 
his iniquities, then the argument in defence of the final holiness 
and happiness of all mankind," from the promises, is of no 
avail. But as saith the apostle, the promises are not yea and 
nay but yea and amen unto the glory of God, all shall be thus 
blessed! Yea, even my brother has acknowledged that in ac- 
cordance with this promise Jesus, "by the grace of God tasted 
death for every man.'" And yet, notwithstanding this conces- 
sion, he is disposed to wrest its simple meaning. He asserts that 
the promise is the very thing the christian must believe, is only 
conditionally true. And this he says " the scriptures will plain- 
ly show." Where do they show this.^ The passages he pro- 
duced from John XV. 5, 6; v. 40; James ii. 19 — 22; Heb. 
V. 9; Gal. iii; Romans iv. 11, 22, 23, 24. Do not teach us 
that it is wholly depending on the faith of man whether he shall 
ultimately be a participant in the blessing promised or not. 

And here I remark once for all, that I would thank my broth- 
er when he attempts to notice one of my proof texts, to give it 
something more than a mere assertion; and then produce a 
string of passages that he thinks refutes my idea drawn from 



118 



tlie proof text. In pursuing the course he has in this instance, 
he only arrays scripture in opposition to scripture, and thus 
leaves the matter no plainer than bef(»re. Observe carefully 
how he attempts to prove his assertions! 

My brother has not appeared to notice the fact that there are 
two kinds of salvation spoken of in the scriptures; namely, a 
salvation that is enjoyed by the believer in this life, through faith 
in the gospel, about which none of us disagree; and the ulti- 
mate salvation, or " final holiness and happiness of all mankind." 

Should any desire to know in what the special salvation of 
believers consists, this is my reply: In believing the glorious 
truth that God is the Savior of all men, they " enter into rest," 
Heb. iv. 2; they are filled " with joy and peace," Rom. xv. 13; 
they " rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory," 1 Peter 
i. 8. In believing the truth they enjoy the presence of the 
Comforter, which is " the Spirit of truth," John xv. 26. 
Their faith works by love and purifies their hearts. Gal. v. 6 ; 
Acts XV. 9. Enjoying " the full assurance of/ai//i," they pos- 
sess also " the full assurance of /lope," Heb vi. 11 ; x. 22; and 
they set their seal to the truth of the record, that ''perfect love 
casteth out fear, because fear hath torments; he that feareth is 
not made perfect in love," 1 John iv. 18. Theirs is a living 
faith, because it is a faith in the living God; and in believing 
that the living God is the Savior of all men, they enjoy the 
special salvation, 1 Tim, iv, 10, Blessed, thrice blessed are 
they who know the joyful sound,* 

It is concerning the future, eternal salvation of the whole 
human family, that we are discussing. 

It is not necessary therefore, that I should examine his scrip- 
ture passages that speak of faith or belief here, I will notice 
however, one, John iii, 18, "For God so loved the world, that 
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
should not perish, but have everlasting life," The next verse 
is — " For God sent not his* Son into the world to condemn the 
world; but that the world through him might be saved !" 

This testifies that the believer should " have everlasting life'' 
in this world, it was something to be enjoyed here; his faith in 



*A. C. Thomas. 



119 



Christ as the Messiah whom God sent not to condemn the world, 
but to save it according to the promise, was his blessing here. 
He was not required to have faith in something that was not 
true until he believed it; it was just as true before as after. I 
will thank my brother to discriminate between those scriptures 
that speak of salvation in this life, and the future salvation. 
But it is not necessary that I should dwell longer upon this 
subject. The promises are that all the nations, families and 
kindreds of the earth shall be blessed, in Christ, by being sav- 
ed from their sins. I love to receive the plain testimony of 
Jehovah where there is nothing of doubt or obscurity connect- 
ed with it, and rejoice in view of the glory it reveals, 

II. My brother says of 1 Timothy ii. 3, 4, " I rejoice to ac- 
knowledge all that the text asserts." The passage is as follows: 
" For this [i. e. supplications, prayers. Sec] is good and accept- 
able in the sight of God our Savior, who will have all men to 
be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." My 
brother says, " I cheerfully admit that it is the will of God to 
save all men." This is all that I contend for, namely, that he 
that " doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and 
among the inhabitants of the earth," Dan. iv. 35, and " Who 
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, " Eph. i. 11, 
should be acknowledged as the God " who ivill have all men to 
be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Yet, 
notwithstanding this acknowledgment, my brother asserts that 
this win not be the case, because he thinks God's will is not 
done here. He therefore proposes the question, " Is God's will 
done in reference to the human family now.'^" The substance 
of his answer, is, that it is not. And thus he militates directly 
aganst the testimony before quoted, that God " worketh all things 
after the counsel of his own will. " He says God's will is not now 
accomplished, but produces no scripture testimony, save that 
before noticed. For my part I prefer to believe the plain teach- 
ings of the record, and let him who presume s to assert the cont- 
rary reconcile that with the Holy Book. 

But admit for a moment that God's will cannot be done, that 
he who is infinite in power, is not able to accomplish his own 
will and purpose ; (how absurd!) what then? Whose will shall be 



120 



done r Why, according to my bj'Other's argument God has creat- 
ed men free moral agents, and has given them this agency so that 
he can have nc? effectual influence over them, and thus, as he 
thinks, that their will is and will continue to be opposed to 
God's, they cannot be saved. 

Again, if it is through faith alone, possessed here, that all shall 
finally be saved, how will infants, idiots and heathen be saved? 
Will these all be lost ? When do these exercise faith in this 
life? Will my brother reconcile these questions with his argu- 
ments? But such is not the testimony of Paul, an Apostle of 
the Lord Jesus, he says God " ivill have'^ — is there any doubt 
or contingency here? God " will have all men to be saved 
and come unto the knowledge of the truth.^^ 

To be sure all men may not be saved from sin in this world. 
T may ask, are there any pure and sinless persons of the age 
of manhood in the earth ? Show me such an individual and I 
will confess myself to have been in error upon this point till now. 
I say we may not behold all men freed from sin in this world, 
but this is no proof that they loill not eventually be freed from 
sin. Paul says (1 Tim. iv. 6) Christ Jesus — ''gave himself a 
ransom for all to be testified in due time. 

Upon this passage my brother is under the necessity of bring- 
ing up again my views of the atonement. They seem to troub- 
le him greatly, although I have said nothing about it in the dis- 
cussion. 

But allowing my brother's views of the atonement to be cor- 
rect, viz. that Christ made a vicarious sacrifice, in suffering 
death upon the Cross, by which he atoned for the sins of men; 
how does that effect the argument from the text, that " Christ 
Jesus gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time?" 
For if Christ gave himself a ransom for all it is not necessary 
that it should be experienced here, if it is only proved to be true 
ultimately. This ivill be the case, for the apostle testifies that 
the ransom is to be testified in due time. This we believe. If 
there are any conditions here, let my brother point them out, I 
can discover none. No! There are none. Christ Jesus did 
give himself a ransom for all, and this will be testified in due 
TIME. Mark those three words in due time. 



\ 

121 

It matters not so much from what or how men are ransomed, 
so long as they are ransomed, and that ransom my brother ad- 
mits is " for all," and to be testified in due time. 

My brother next notices my remarks upon Ezekiel xxxiii. 11. 

As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death 
of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." 
He has quoted the entire paragraph, and offered comments 
which virtually amount to saying that he cannot comprehend 
its meaning. Yet he has quoted the scripture testimony, that 
" the soul that sinneth it shall die," and the wages of sin is 
death," &c. which is in perfect agreement with the remarks al- 
luded to ; God will visit the wicked with moral death, in con- 
sequence of their sins, and thus shall they be turned from their 
evil way and live ; in accordance with the blessing promised 
jn-Christ ''everyone shall be turned from his iniquities ;" thus 
passing from moral death unto life. He next notices Ephes. i. 
9, 10 — God " Having made known unto us the mystery of his 
%\\\\ according to his g<iod pleasure, which he hath purposed 
in himself, that, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he 
might gather together in one, all things in Christ, both which 
are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him." 

The declaration is, that God hath purposed to gather togeth- 
er in one all things, in Christ. To this my brother replies, 
that this cannot prove that all will be saved ; because he says, 
I admit that the phrase '' all things''' does not mean all men." 
Where did I admit any such idea? Why, in this language ; I 
said concerning the whole passage ; " This cannot refer to 
those that are already in Christ ; for such are already gathered 
together in one." &lc. Did I admit any thing like what he 
charges upon me ? At the close, I said, " the text must in- 
clude those out of Christ, as well as those in Christ — literally 
*' all things'*^ — ail intelligent beings in heaven and in earth." 
I wonder that my brother should thus unblushingly, accuse me 
of what my manuscript before him, plainly showed to be false. 

His remarks about hell, are out of place here, they were no- 
ticed under the former part of the question under discussion. ^ 

f next notice his remarks upon the will and purposes of God, 
16 



122 



only so far as to observe lliat he says " thu latter [ihe pur- 
poses of God] CANNOT FAIL." Very well, then, we need have 
no doubts of the fulfilment of the apostle's declaration, God 
having made uiito us [i. e. revealed to the believers] the myste- 
ry of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath 
PURPOSED in himself." What hath he purposed" that " can- 
not fail?" listen! " he hath purposed," that in the dispmsa- 
lion of the fulness of times he might gather together in one, 
ALL THINGS IN CHRIST, both which are in heaven, and which 
are on earth, even in him. 

I pass now to notice my brother's remarks on 1 Cor. xv. 
The substance of his argument, is, that only the resurrection 
of the body is spoken of in this chapter. He says, It assures 
as that all will have a resurrection, but it is not once said that 
all shall be made holy and happy. But I shall show you that 
it teaches the contrary doctrine." Where has he shown 
this 1 I suppose he intended to prove it by the 23d verse. The 
22d verse is as follows : " As in Adam all die, even so in 
Christ shall all be made alive." The next two verses are, " But 
every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward 
they that are Cferist's at his coming." " llien cometh the end, 
when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the 
Father ; when he shalt have put down all rule, and all author- 
ity and power." Now it is very evident that only the order of 
lime, in which the resurrection is to take place, is spoken of. 
The apostle testifies, every man in his own order, Christ the 
first fruits, they that are Christ's at his comings then, the end. 
But my brother rests his strong argument on the words, " they 
that are Christ's at his coming ;" he produces scripture testi- 
mony to show that Christ's second advent is yet future, part 
of which testimony has been already examined in the course of 
this discussion. This, however, is not the place to reply, and 
even were I disposed to do so, it would not be my duty until 
my reasoning upon the passages had been successfully refuted. 

But so far as the order of the resurrection is concerned, the 
time of Christ's second advent does not effect the position I 
have taken, for the apostle testifies, concerning the ultimate re- 



123 

■A 

sull, which is all I ;iin contending for ; he says, verse 24th, 
*'Then the end, when he [Christ] shall have delivered up the 
kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put 
down all rule, and all authority and power — 25th, For he must 
reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet." But I may 
suppose my brother will contend that such will not be the case, 
for although this is the will and purpose of God, yet as man is 
a moral agent, he will not be raised or made alive in Christ, 
unless he is disposed to be. Nay, this is not my brother's view, 
he says, *' that all loill have a resurrection." But then, he 
conceives that it is only our earthly bodies that are to be rais- 
ed, and in proof of his argument that all men will not be par- 
ticipants of a spiritual life at the resurrection, he quotes among 
other passages, John v. 28, 29, Marvel not at this: for the 
hour is not coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall 
hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good, 
unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have done evil, unto 
the resurrection of damnation." Our inquiry here, is, does this 
passage have reference to the same resurrection taught in 15th 
chapter of first Corinthians ? We answer, no ! Does this tes- 
timony in John v, relate to the resurrection of our mortal bod- 
ies 1 No ! and my brother makes no elfort to prove that it does ! 

Similar language occurs in Daniel xii. 2, the connection of 
which is quoted by Jesus, in Matt. xxiv. 15, 21, and applies to 
the period of the destruction of Jerusalem. This passage in 
John refers to the same period. It is true, that being in the 
graves is spoken of — but in Ezekiel xxxvii, the whole house of 
Israel is represented as being in their graves, which only sig- 
nified their state of bondage in Babylon, from which the Lord 
promised to bring them out, and to place them in their own 
land. The word resurrection in the passage in John, affords 
no proof that the allusion is to a rising into an immortal state 
— for, as Dr. Campbell justly observes, " this is neither the only, 
nor the primitive import, of the word arastasis. It denotes 
simply, being raised from inactivity to action, or from obscuri- 
ty to eminence, or a return to such a state, after an interrup- 
tion."* 

* A. C> Thomas. 



124 



I do not feel required to explain the passage in question, as 
lio attempt was made to prove that it had reference to the im- 
mortal state of existence. 

But in order to show that the resurrection in John v, 28,29, 
had reference to something long since past, I will quote the 
24th and 25th verses of the chapter, where Jesus testifies : 
** Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that heareth my word, and 
believeth on him that sent me^ hath everlasting life, and shall 
not come into condemnation : but is passed from death unto 
lifey What ! had the bodies of the believers in Jesus, passed 
from mortality, from death, nnto immortality, to life ? none will 
contend thus. Then this portion of the Savior's language 
cannot refer to the immortal resurrection. But listen to the 
next verse. " Verily, verily, I say unto you. The hour is pom- 
ing, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son 
of God ; and they that hear shall live." The hour is coming 
and now is when the dead shall hear, S^c. Does this mean that 
the bodies of those who had been dead and buried in their 
graves for ages on ages, did then hear and live ? Every one 
must allow that the resurrection here spoken of was a moral 
resurrection. I would thank my brother to discriminate in his 
quotations upon the resurrection ; for, as we have endeavored 
to show, a different signification is given to the word, by the 
connection in which it occurs. 

But to the chapter in Corinthians. The testimony in the 
22d verse is written thus, " For as in Adam all die, even so in 
Christ shall all be made alive." My brother admits that the 
word ALL in each member of this sentence, is expressive of 
universality — for though Enoch and Elijah were translated ^ 
they must have underwent a change which was equivalent to 
death. " By Adam, in the passage before us, I understand the 
mortal constitution of the first man who was of the earth, ear- 
thy. All the children of humanity bear this image, as a mortal 
being : and in that image they must return to the dust whence 
they were taken. By Christ I understand the quickening spir- 
it, the Lord from heaven, the heavenly. By being made alive 
in Christ is signified the resurrection into a state of incorrup- 



125 



tion, power, glory ; in a spiritual body ; in tlie imagt' of llio 
heavenly, who is declared to have been " the image of the in- 
visible God." As it is not optional with man whether he will 
or will not die in Adam, so I judge it to be not a matter of 
choice with him, whether he will or will not be made alive in 
Christ. The promise is absolute, and in the fulfilment thereof, 
man is necessarily p«s5/ye. " For as in Adam all die, even so 
in Christ shall all be made alivey 

Thus far there is perfect unity, I believe, between our views 
of the resurrection. But my brother's general argument, as- 
sumes that no renovation is to be effected by the power of the 
resurrection — or as popular opinion expresses the sentiment, 
" as death leaves us so judgment finds us; there is no change 
after death." And hence, he argues concerning the eternal 
destiny of any individual, from the condition in which he was 
when he died. He inquires, how he laid down in the grave, 
and with what feelings and in what estate he departed this life. 
But in the days of Paul the queries were, " Hoiv arethe dead 
RAISED UP ? and with what body do they come (1 Cor. xv, 35.) 
The answer is given in the voice of inspiration : It is raised in 
incorruption, power, and glory ; a spiritual body, in the image 
of the glorified Redeemer. " For as in Adam all die ; even 
so in Christ shall all be made alive.^^ And " if any man be 
in Christ, he is a new creature," (2 Cor. v. 17.) It is writ- 
ten, " The dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be 
changed.'" It was in prospect of this great and glorious change, 
that the apostle could hope for the resurrection even of the un- 
just, Acts xxiv. 15. He surely could not have hoped for the res- 
urrection of the unjust, if he had believed they would be raised 
from the dead simply to suffer the unutterable pangs of endless 
torment ! The doctrine of the Messiah was, " In the resur- 
rection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are 
equal unto the angels ; and are the children of God, being the 
children of the resurrection," (Matt. xxii. 29, 30.) In pros- 
pect of a resurrection, of this glorious and sublime character, 
we may truly rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory "* 



A. C. Thomas. 



126 



I will notice a passage niy brother cited in his remarks up- 
on the conditionality of salvation, it will not be out of place 
here. I refer to John xv. 5, G — Jesus said to his disciples, 
'* 1 am the vine, ye are the branches : If a man abide not in mc, 
he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; and men gather 
them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." The 
argument drawn from this passage is, that the sinner, he who 
abides not in Christ, will be cast off, having not been fruitful 
in good works. Yea, even that some who have been connect- 
ed with Christ, as the branch is with the vine, i. e. by faith, or 
belief in him, will be cast away. We admit, as before remark- 
ed, that the salvation of the believer here, dependeth upon his 
faith here, and that many who have believed in Christ, have 
fallen back again into condemnation, a state of unbelief. *' But 
to be in Christ in this mutable state, surrounded by tempta- 
tion, exposed to the power of deceptive influences, and liable 
each moment to be led into sin, is a very different matter from 
being in Christ in an unchanging state, removed from the in- 
fluence of tempting and corrupting circumstances. He who is in 
Christ even in this life, is a new creature — for he " has put off" the 
old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and 
has put on the new man, which after God is created in righteous- 
ness and true holiness" — but he may revert to his former es- 
tate, and be cast oflT as an unfruitful branch. Now if it can be 
proved, that any who is a member of one of the kindreds of the 
earth, who shall be a participant of the blessing promised in 
Christ, and who may be made alive in Christ, (in the immor- 
tal resurrection) in incorrupiion, and in a spiritual body, and 
who is, therefore, a new creature, will not abide in Christ, or 
will ever again put on the old man which is corrupt according 
to the deceitful lusts, then it will be proved that such an one 
will be cast off — but not otherwise.* 

But we return to Matt. xxii. 29, 30. " Jesus said to the Sad- 
ducees. Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power 
of God : for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are giv- 
en in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." In the 



* A. C. Thomas.- 



127 



parallel place in Luke xx. 34 — 0(3, it is written : " The chil- 
dren of this world marry and are given in murriai^e ; hut ihey 
which are accounted worthy to obtain that world, and tlie res- 
urrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in mar- 
riage : neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto 
the angels ; and are the children of God, being the children of 
the resurrection." 

My brother perhaps may say to this testimony, that were it 
not for this clause ' they which shall be accounted worthy to 
obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead,' he could 
receive it in proof of my position. I will therefore now meet 
this objection. " The Sadducees did not accredit the doctrine 
of immortality, and the case they presented [of the woman who 
had seven husbands,] was merely designed to perplex our Lord. 
Their inquiry assumed that conjugal affinities must exist in the 
future life, (if a future life there be) as in the present ; and 
that tJir.re, men would possess many, if not all, the passions 
which are here developed. Hence they desired to know whose 
wife of the seven brethren the woman should be in the resur- 
rection. The supposition that our Lord evaded the inquiry, is 
not admissable; and since it will freely be conceded that his 
reply was pertinent, we conclude that he referred directly to 
the resurrection state. He contrasts the present state of beings 
in which matrimonial alliances are contracted, with the incor- 
ruptible and spiritual life, in which no such ties are formed. 
If it be alleged that some of our race shall not be accounted 
worthy to be raised from the dead, the doctrine of endless pun- 
ishment must be discarded, unless endless punishment can be 
conceived of, without a resurrection. But since it is granted 
by my brother, that all mankind shall be the children of the res- 
urrection, he must admit that they will be the children of God. 
It will not do for him to assert that some of the human family 
" will be undutiful and rebellious children forever, for this is 
exploded by Rom. viii. 21, "the [rational] creation shall be 
delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious lib- 
ety of the children of God." 

In his address to the Sadducees, our Lord simply intended 



128 



to correct their erl-or as to the condition of men in the future 
state. They supposed, as previously mentioned, that the pas- 
sions which men possess in this world, they would possess 
hereafter ; and they imagined that the difficulties of the case 
they presented, furnished an unanswerable objection to the 
doctrine of immortality. The promise was false. Hence said 
Jesus, " Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power 
of God." Then properly followed a correction of the error 
referred to. 

In replying to an inquiry pertaining solely to the condition of 
men, that is their mode, of being, in the resurrection state, our 
Savior did not feel called upon to say how many would be raised 
from the dead. The doctrine of the Pharisees (some of whom 
were present) restrained the resurrection to the just, which re- 
striction our Lord did not see proper directly to deny on that 
occasion. Neither did he then deny the Pharisaic notion of the 
transmigration of souls. Indeed, he did not, at that time, ex- 
pressly dispute any doctrine of the Pharisees — otherwise the 
Scribes would not have commended his remarks, Luke xx. 39. 
But are we to infer that he countenanced their notion, that only 
a part or portion of our race will be raised from the dead.'' Cer- 
tainly not. He was replying to a question of condition not of 
number. He certified the Sadducees, and he certifies m, that 
as many as shall be raised shall be equal unto the angels; and 
the assurance that they shall be the children of God, is predi- 
cated of the fact, that they shall be the children of the resur- 
rection. Moreover, Christianity teaches that all who bear the 
image of the earthy, and die in Adam, are by the Supreme Be- 
ing accounted worthy to be made alive in Christ, in the image 
of the heavenly. Hence Paul could hope for the resurrection 
even of the unjust. Acts xxiv, 15. He expected it — }\q desir- 
ed it; and the conjunction of expectation and desire produced ia 
him a hope full of immortality. He looked in faith ' ' for that 6/es- 
se(i /lope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our 
Savior Jesus Christ," Titus ii. 13, " who shall change our vile 
body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, ac- 
cording to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things 
to himself," Philippians iii. 21. He speaks of change from mor- 



129 



tality to immortality as a victory over death — as the means 
of introducing the whole family of man into a state of ineffable 
bliss, where "the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all 
faces;" 1 Cor. xv. 54, 56; Isa. xxv. 8. And he enjoyed so clear 
a view of this sublime consummation of the reign of Christ, 
that he was enabled abundantly to " rejoice in hope of the glo- 
ry of God," Rom. v. 2. 

1 Cor. XV. 28: " And when all tilings shall be subdued unto 
him, then shall the Son, Also himself be subject [or subdued] 
unto him that put all things under him, [or rather, that subdu- 
ed all things unto him] that god may be all in all." It will 
be perceived that the word also in the passage, debars the 
popular cavil that some will be subdued to God in one way, 
and the rest in another; and I know of no rational exposition 
of the language, that God may be all in all, if a part of our race 
are to be eternally excluded from the enjoyment of his love. 

There are many important considerations connected with the 
Bible doctrine of the resurrection, which I should be pleased to 
notice, but I will confine my remarks to three particulars: 1st. 
The tetimony of Jesus, that " in the resurrection they are the 
children of God, BeIxXG the children of the resurrection," des- 
troys the popular notion, that the condition of man in the future 
state, will be determined by his character or conduct in this. 
Our Savior does not say, " In the resurrection they are the 
children of God, having been my disciples in the present world." 
No. The assurance that they shall be the children of God, is 
predicated of the simple fact, that they shall be the children of 
the resurrection. 2d. The Holy Spirit does not speak of the fu- 
ture blessedness of individuals, as such. All the members of 
the human family constitute the body of which Jesus is the head. 
" The head of eve^-y man is Christ," 1 Cor.xi. 3. He tasted 
^Meath for every man, Heb. ii. 9. "In Christ shall all be 
made alive." God " will have all men to be saved." " Ev- 
ery knee shall bow." These and similar forms of expression, 
plainly show, that the Holy Spirit has revealed the future con- 
dition of mankind as a whole and not as individuals. 3d. The 
scripture doctrine of the resurrection, exposes the folly of the 
inquiries which are so frequently made as to the condition in 

17 



130 



which a man iias died. Is it sown in corruption? it shall be 
raised in iucorru[)tion: \a it sown in weakness? it shall be rais- 
ed in power: is it sown in dislionor? it shall be raised in glory: 
is it sown an animal body? it shall be raised a spiritual body: 
has the person died in Adam ? he shall be made alive in Christ : 
did he bear the image of the earthy? he shall also bear the im- 
age of the heavenly. The questions should not be, How do 
mankind die? in what condition do they depart? but " How are 
the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Al- 
low the scriptures to furnish the reply, and the believer of the 
record will rejoice in the assurance, that in the resurrection 
universal humaniiy shall walk forth in the beauty of holiness, 
redeemed and regenerated by the quickening spirit of the living 
God."* 

III. My brother's remarks upon my promiscuous proof 
texts, must be passed by, for want of time, with but a word of 
comment. What he says on Romans v. amounts to nothing 
more than telling me, that it is directly opposed to the univer- 
sal reign of grace distinctly taught in the conclusion of the 
chapter. Had he shown the fallacy of my argument drawn 
from that, or attempted to do so, it should be noticed. His ap- 
parently convicting me, (in a remark made extemporaneous,) 
of misrepresentation in quoting from Dr. Clarke, amounts to 
nothing, as any one will discover by examining his commenta- 
ry. My quotation from Dr. Clarke was made with reference 
to the extent of the reign of grace, and not to show that he was 
a Universalist. In order that there need be no misunderstand- 
ing, I will again quote the same as before, with the words my 
brother wishes. [The quotation referred to will be found in Part 
II. No. 1, of the Discussion.] 

Does my brother call his charge against me honest ? Is it 
Christ-like? Does it become one professing to be a disciple, a 
minister of the Lord Jesus ? It was my design to produce 
much other testimony in support of the glorious gospel, or glad 
tidings of a world's salvation, but my limits do not admit. 

"God is admitted by all christians, and declared by the Bible, 



* A. C, Thomas. 



131 



t.o be iiijTnUchj g'oot/. Tiierc can be, therefore, nothing too good 
for him to do. Endlest^ sin and endless misery is adrnitted by all 
christians to be infinilehj tvil. The l^ible declares any sin to be 
an evil. It follows then, that an infiniie evil is directly contrary 
to God's whole nature and character. On the other hand, uni- 
versal and endless salvation from sin, and restoration to holi- 
ness and blessedness, is perfectly in accordance with God's 
v\'hole nature and character. From these considerations it fol- 
lows, that Partialism, or the doctrine of endless sin and wo, re- 
quires more prooj to establish it, tiian does the doctrine of Uni- 
versaiism — because it is less in accordance with God's nature 
and character, and therefore less probable. 

Again, our Paitialist brethren all admit, (I presume my 
brother will not deny this,) 1 say they admit that every one of 
God's attributes and perfections is in favor of universal salva- 
tion, except the single attribute of justice. Suppose them cor- 
rect, and you have holiness, mercy, benevolence, wisdom, 
goodness, love — all testifying one way; and, justice, only, a- 
gainst them. What should you believe — the doctrine of the 
one, or that of the many? But justice, as imperatively as any 
other attribute of God, requires endless and universal recon- 
ciliation to God, purification from all iniquity, salvation from 
all sin, and obedience to all God's commands. Justice never 
did and never will require man to be endlessly sinful; for if it 
did, it never would punish man for sinning. Justice and holi- 
ness unite with all the other attributes of God in requiring man 
to be just and holy — and being directed in their efforts to re- 
claim the sinner, by infinite wisdom, they ivill succeed — they 
cannot fail."* 

That God is infinite in goodness, wisdom and power; the 
scriptures, as well as all nature, plainly teach. This my broth" 
er will not deny. From these premises then, I make a few sug- 
gestions, to which I invite his particular attention in his reply. 

Is it possible ' ' that an infinitely wise and benevolent God 
would bring into existence millions of immortal souls for the 
express purpose of making them endlessly miserable ? All an- 



*A. B. Orosh. 



132 



swcr, no. Then, of course, you believe that He designed to 
make them endlessly happy, and arranged His plans accord- 
ingly. Now can you persuade yourself that if God, having in- 
finite wisdom to devise, and infinite power to execute, did reaUij 
devise and design the happiness of man. He will, nevertheless, 
be so utterly foiled and defeated, that the very opposite of this 
will happen? We will not stay to inquire how this happens. 
It is enough that God, in the creation, designed and planned 
the happiness of man, and that this plan will be so completely 
frustrated that the greater part of the human race will be end- 
lessly miserable, according to my brother's doctrine. I ask, is 
it possible to believe this, and also believe that God is perfect 
in power and wisdom ? But again — if God in his great love 
designed and sought the happiness of his family; and, after all, 
the greater part of them shall prove irredeemably vicious, and 
at last be swung off from the scaffold of judgment into an eter- 
nity of sinfulness and suffering, is it possible to believe that 
God will be satisfied and happy with such a frightful termina- 
tion of his benevolent plans ? And if he is not satisfied nor 
happy, will he not be miserable? Is it possible for you, my 
hearers, to believe a doctrine which involves such terrible con- 
sequences, and so mars and marks the plans of God with weak- 
ness, blindness and disappointment? Is it possible to believe 
that if any of the human race shall be endlessly miserable, God 
did not know it before he created them? "Known unto God 
are all his works from the beginning of the world," Acts xv. 
If he did know it, why did he then create them ? Is it pos- 
sible to believe that a God of infinite mercy and benevolence 
would calmly and coolly go to work and create millions of beings, 
knowing all the time that the existence he was giving them would 
prove an endless curse to them? What would you think of that 
parent who should suspend his child by a frail thread over a 
dreadful precipice, with wild and ferocious beasts howling at the 
foot of it, uncertain whether the thread would hold or break? 
Would you not think him a monster? What, then, would you 
call this monster, if you were told that, before he suspended 
his child over the precipice, he hieiv ceHainly that the thread 
would break, and the little sufferer be dashed down the ragged 



133 



rocks, and torn in pieces by the howling brutes below! ICtlic 
doctrine my brother believes is true, then is endless misery, 
this dreadful precipice, and devils, the raging beasts at its 
foot — and God, before He gave being to that portion of His 
children who are to be irretrievably lost, before He suspended 
them over the frightful abyss by the thread of existence, kiiciu 
certainly that that thread would break, and they be hurled down, 
down amid the screaming and raging fiends below! My hear- 
ers, it is fearful — can you beheve it? 

Again — Is it possible that "free agency" is any apology 
for these terrible evils ? Do you say that man might save him- 
self if he w^ould? But does that take from the force of the truth 
that God hneio he loould not? Was he not perfectly sure, when 
he gave man free agency, that a part would so abuse it, that 
it would prove their final and endless ruin? Why, then, did 
He bestow on these the fatal gift? Do you reply that man 
must have been either a machine or a free agent? Well, ad- 
mit that free agency was a necessary part of the mental consti- 
tution of man; would it not have been better to have created 
only those who He foresaw would make a good use of it, and so 
be endlessly happy ; and have left those who He foresaw would 
make it the cause of their destruction, uncreated, so to speak? 
We press the question — why give existence at all where it 
was necessary to connect with that existence a principle which 
would certainly through all coming time fill it with indescriba- 
ble wo and pain? Is this benevolent or merciful? Is it possi- 
ble to believe that God, our God w^ould do it ? 

But again — It is acknowledged that God in creating man, 
designed: -to make him endlessly happy. Now is it possible to 
believe that, this being His real purpose, He would at the same 
time bestow on man a principle which he foresaw would cer- 
tainly defeat the very object of his creation? What would you 
think af that man who should make a Avatch to keep the time, 
and then introduce into the work a wheel which he knew would 
prevent the watch from keeping time, and forever render it use- 
less?" Now, if my brother's doctrine be true, this is precisely 
the course pursued by God — creating man to be endlessly hap- 
py, and then inserting in his spiritual machinery the wheel of 



131 



free a;L^cucy, which he kucAv at the time would make him end- 
lessly miserable! Is it possible to believe this? Can you, can 
my brother believe it? 

My brother has acknowledged that it is God's will that all 
men should be saved. If then, God would save all mankind, 
hut cannot, is he infinite in power? If God can save all man- 
kind, but will nol is he infinite in goodness? I will thank my 
brother to carefully examine these questions, drawn from the ac- 
knowledged character of God, as revealed in the scriptures, in 
his rejoinder They are affirmative arguments with me. 

We have already shown in what the special salvation of the 
believer consists, and desire attention to the argument thence 
deducible in proof of Universalism. " Since the spirit of truth 
is styled the ' Comforter thevQ can be nothing tormenting in the 
Christian faith. On the contrary, he who believes " the truth 
as it is in Jesus," enters into rest; is filled with joy and peace; 
yea, he rejoices with joy unspeakable and full of glory." Now, 
I ask, will my brother contend that, " faith in the doctrine of 
endless wo, in any of its modifications, can fill the soul •with 
the peace of Gad ? Will he contend that the prospect of inter- 
minable wretchedness for any of our race, can cause the be- 
liever to rejoice with unutterable joy. To what heart is the 
spirit of eternal wrath the comforter. 

Let me come a little nearer those of our hearers who are 
parents; you love your children. He who touches ihem, in the 
way of injury, touches the apple of the father's and the moth- 
er's eye. You rejoice in their happiness. Your heart is ir- 
clined to them in all the tenderness of parental love. Can you 
bear the thought that any of them shall be the subjects of end- 
less damnation? Can you rejoice in believing that a son or 
daughter shall be sentenced to the doom of darkness and de- 
spair forever ? Pardon me for asking these questions. You 
have parents' hearts, and I hioiv that rejoicing is a stranger to 
your souls, whenever you mentally grant that some of your off- 
spring may he eternally lost! But even supposing you to be 
satisfied that yourself, your companion, your children, your pa- 
rents will certainly be saved, is there not still an aching void in 
your heart? Are yon filled with joy and peace? Believing that 



135 



any number of mankind will bo miserable world \ulliout cmuI, 
can yoLi rejoice with jo ij unspeakable and full of glory? In con- 
templating the endless ruin, the undying agony, of millions of 
youi" brethren in the human race, do you experience the celes- 
tial influences of the comforter? But why should I press these 
questions? Are you not, and do you not possess the feelings of 
men and women? Yet " if you are not comtbrted by faith in 
the doctrine of endless hell torments — if you rejoice not with 
unspeakable joy in believing that a part of mankind will be 
doomed to unutterable wo, — either the doctrine in question is 
false, or your heart is not right in the sight of God! The alle- 
gation that you expect hereafter to rejoice in the damnation of 
the impenitent, is nothing to the purpose — for, in the first place, 
if you believe the truth you will be comforted now, you will re- 
joice in believing ; and in the second, I have yet to learn that 
the resurrection will change man into a fiend! 

But I gladly turn from the contemplation of a doctrinal sys- 
tem devised in the wisdom of the world, which is foolishness 
with God — a system fraught with the most blasphemous and 
revolting conclusions; and with feelings of love invite you to 
take a careful and full view of the doctrine of illimitable grace. 

Behold the Lamb of God w^io taketh avi^ay the sin of the 
WORLD," John i. 26. Behold in faith the triumphs of redeeming 
love ! Behold the issue of the reign of Christ ! 

" Then the end; beneath his rod, 

Illair's last enemy shall fall; 
AlleUiiia ! Christ in God — 

God in Christ is all in all!" 

In dwelling on this glorious theme the heart grows warm in 
gratitude and love, and the kindling glow of the Comforter, the 
spirit of truth, is felt in the soul. Truly the living can " re- 
joice with JOT/ unspeakable and full of glory, in anticipation of 
the blissful era, when the hand of the believing God shall wipe 
the tear from every eye, and hush in every breast, the rising 
sigh forever. And here consists the special salvation he enjoys. 
It is a salvation from the fear that hath torment — it is a deliv- 
erance from the bondage of the fear of death, Heb. ii. 14. It 



136 



is the result of unwavering confidence in the fulfilment of the 
absolute promise of the Almighty, that all the nations, families 
and kindreds of the earth, shall eventually be blessed in 
Christ."* Amen and Amen. 



* A. C Tlioiiias, 



D I S C L 8 S I O N, 

Part II. No. IV. " 

IN THE METHODIST CHURCH, APRIL ^5, 1843 
ii Y F. Y A T . 



''But there he some that trouble you, and would pervert the 
gospel of Christ.'" galatians, i. 7, 

It would seem that there were those in the days of the apos- 
tles, who were not satisfied with the pure gospel of Christ, but 
who differed very essentially from the plain truths it inculcated. 
Some of these had found their way into the church at Galatia ; 
and in order that they might the more successfully palm their 
false notions off upon the Christian Church, they came as ^05- 
pel 7nini'^fers. " We, (say they) are set for the defence of the 
gospel — hear us," But the apostle Paul met these self-made 
ministers, and faithfully exposed them. In every age of the 
church, the robe of the sanctuary has been stolen, with which 
to propagate the most absurd and dangerous errors. 

My opponent thinks he is set for the defence of the gospel, 
and he says the gospel is good news," &lc. So say we, the 
gospel is good tidings of great joy, but not so on the hypothe- 
sis that universalism is true. To be sure, its advocates tell us 
that all is well, no danger, no one lost, no one can be lost. 
The gospel, whicii is such good news, only assures us that we 
18 



138 



were never in danger of the wrath to come, never in dinger of 
hell fire, and never can be lost. This is o-lorious news ! A 
man runs tiirouglj the country in time of peace and quietness, 
Avhen no one imagines any danger, and cries " good news ! 
good news! glorious tidings i" and when inquired of what it 
is; " O, there is no war — no danger of war." The people 
would laugh at his folly. But here is another case : A famine 
was prevailing to a great extent in the city of Samaria. 
The people were dying with hunger by multitudes. The four 
leprous men who stood at the gate, went to the camp of the 
Asyrians, which, to their great joy and astonishment, they found 
in their quiet possession, with an abundance of provisions. 

This," said they, " is a day of good tidings — let us declare 
it to the king's^, household." Now if Samaria had been full, 
and there was no danger of want or starvation, this would not 
have been a day of such good tidings. Again, if any in the 
city had been disposed to doubt the message, and had perished 
in consequence, it would have been a true message, and good 
tidings still, notwithstanding their unbelief. So the gospel. It 
comes to a guilty and perishing world, with offers of pardon 
and salvation. These offers are made to all people, and it is 
good news, whether men receive it or reject it. On the sup- 
position that men have exposed themselves to endless punish- 
ment by transgression, and have no means of saving themselves 
from this awful doom, the gospel, which brings to view a plan 
of salvcition through Jesus Christ, is indeed good news. My 
opponent thinks I had better let our hearers decide whether my 
arguments have been answered or not, and not presume to set 
myself up, &c. I reply, that when my principal arguments are 
passed by a second time without even a notice, I have a right 
to remind him, and our hearers of the fact ; and I shall not 
sit at his feet to learn lessons of modesty. I presume our hear- 
ers will recollect that my arguments presented and repeated to 
prove my application of Matt. xxv. 31 — 46, to the future state, 
were not even noticed, though his attention was called to them 
especially. Other prominent ones might be named. 

I. He thinks he is under no obligation to notice my re- 



139 



marks on the text he quoted from Acts iii. concerning the " res- 
titution of ail things," as he did not produce it us one of his 
proof texts. If he did not introduce it as a proof text, he re- 
garded it as teaching that all men will he finally holy and hap- 
py, and has quoted it frequently in the course of this discus- 
sion. Now that I have met it, and proved from the text and 
its connection, that it \s fatal to his theory, he drops it by say- 
ing he did not introduce it as n. proof tei t. Would he have 
passed by in silence, the two arguments I raised against his 
doctrine from one of his own texts, if he could have done any 
better. 

The pro?U!St,' made to the ancient patriarchs, he still contends 
must prove the unconditional salvation of all men, but he has 
used no new argument to prove this, neither has he reconciled 
this idea withj^aul's appiication of the promise. 

Although I consider the remarks made in my first reply suf- 
ficient on this point to satisfy any one who is willing to receive 
the plain testimony of God's word, yet I \vi\l here add a few 
remarks to show our hearers again, the obvious import of the 
promise in question. 

It is admitted that it is universal and unconditional in some 
respects. 1. So far as it relates to the advent of the Savior, it 
is unconditional, and his death has procured blessings which 
are universal and unconditional, such as our temporal bles- 
sings, for in him we live and move and have our being." 
And blessings of a spiritual or gospel character — deliverance 
from the original curse, — " For as by the offence of one judg- 
ment came upon all men unto condemnation, even so by the 
righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justi- 
fication of life." In this we see how infants and idiots can be 
saved, and those heathen too, who obey the law that is written 
on their hearts by the " Spirit that eniighteneth everi/ man that 
cometh into the world." But 2. It is perfectly clear, that so 
far as it relates to individuals v/ho have involved personal con- 
demnation, and W'ho are capable of receiving the gospel, and of 
embracing its terms, it is conditional. We say those who are 
capable of receiving the gospel, for the word of God addresses 



140 



itself to no others. Ii regards man as a moral agent - -a volun- 
tary being. It addresses him as such. This must be self-evi- 
dent to every man. To such the gospel comes with its condi- 
tions. 

But I must notice again his arguments to prove uncondi- 
tional salvation. I will present his principal one, and try to 
meet it. " Acts iii. the apostle testifies to the Jews that in accor- 
dance with the promise God sent his Son to bless in ' turning 
away every one from his iniquities, i. e. in saving every indi- 
vidual from his sins.' — " The preceding verse answers the 
question, Who are to be blessed in Christ ? which testimony 
isj that God covenanted with Abraham, saying, ' And in thy 
seed shall all the Jcindreds of the earth he Messed.^ Is there any 
condition expressed or implied here? I can discover none. If 
Ihere is, will my brother point it out distinctly This, I 
think, presents the strength of his argument; and for the satis- 
faction of our hearers I will submit the following remarks : 

1. Let it be remembered that this scripture, containing the 
promise, is produced by my opponent in proof of future, and 
eternal salvation.'' This he contends is the salvation brought 
to view in the promise. Bear this in mind. 

2. I will now prove to yon, from this very text and its con- 
nection, that the salvation it treats of is conditional. Hear the 
testimony : " for Moses truly said unto the fathers, a prophet 
shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, 
like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he 
shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul 
which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from a- 
mong the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and 
those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise 
foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, 
and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying 
unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the 
earth be blessed. Unto you first, God having raised up his 
Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of 
you from his iniquities." How clearly does this bear on its 
very face conditions of salvation. — (L) Jesus was sent to the 



141 



.Tews, according to the promise, ni;ulc to tlie riiihers, lie 
might turn them from their iniquities. Mark, he <tY/.s .sr/</ for 
this purpose ; but they were not all turned from tlieir iniqui- 
ties. It does not assert that he will turn them in the future 
fctate. He " was sent" to do it in the days of his flesh, and the 
fact that he did not do it proves at least a condition implied. 
(2.) It is positively asserted that " cvcri/ soul which ivill not 
hear''' the Son Jesus, " shall be destroyed from among the jxo- 
ple." Thus the salvation spoken of in the text, which my op- 
ponent says is future and eternal, is made to depend on the 
condition of hearing Christ, whicli implies faith and obedience. 
I trust I have now " distinctly pointed out" the condition, 
which is not only " implied," but " expressed." 

I will introduce once more, Paul's application of the promise 
in Gal. iii. Still bear in mind that the salvation promised em- 
braces the future and eternal salvation. So says my opponent. 
" So then they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful A- 
braham. For ye [believers] are all the children of God by faith 
in Christ Jesus ; and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
seed, and heirs according to the promise." — The same apostle 
speaks again of the heirship on this wise, Rom. viii. "Now if 
any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. For 
as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of 
God. If children then arc heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs 
with Christ." What can be plainer ? But my opponent tries 
to evade the force of this reasoning, by saying that all that re- 
lates to the condition of salvation refers to the special salva- 
tion of believers in this life. But he is a little too late, having 
applied the very scriptures to future salvation, which we have 
seen proves salvation to be conditional ! 

He has undertaken to tell us what the special salvation of be- 
lievers is. He says, " should any desire to know in what the 
special salvation of believers consists, this is my reply : In be- 
lievinor the glorious truth that " God is the Savior of all men," 
they " enter into rest," &lc. By this he means, that to believe 
in universalism is the condition of the special blessings prom- 
ised in this life ! I beg leave to dissent from this, My hear- 



142 



erp will pnrdoii me if I speak phiiiilj. It is a fact too well 
known to he contradicted, tliat many of the most vicious among 
us are among the loud proclaimars of this faith. Do they " en- 
ter into rest?" Do they " rejoice with joy unspeakable and 
full of glory ? ' Yes, according to the theory of my opponent. 
It requires no change, only "believe this glorious truth. " 

I will notice tliis no farther. — I think it must now be conclu- 
sive to every candid mind, that if Paul and Peter were capable 
of understanding the promise made to Abraham, nay, if the 
Holy Ghost, by whom they wrote, understood it, the salvation 
of which it treats is conditional. This salvation my opponent 
says is future and eternal ; consequently, future and eternal 
salvation is conditional. So " saith the scripture." 

Before leaving this point I will say one word about the a- 
tonement. I observed in my last, that he made the salvation 
of men depend on the merits of Christ, — this must have been 
apparent to all. To show his inconsistency, I stated that he 
did not believe that the death of Christ saves us from a single 
pang of deserved punishment, or from heli in another world ; 
neither does he save us from the commission of sin in this life. 
He says, that by so doing I have exhibited my ignorance of his 
views of tlie atonement, or else have grossly misrepresented him. 
I reply, that I am not ignorant of his views, for he frankly a- 
vowed them at the time alluded to. Neither have I misrepre- 
sented him in the least. Now let him produce his manuscript 
which he used on that occasion, and convict me of false- 
hood if he can. If he had given a definite answer to my plain 
question, and told us in what sense Christ does, or will save us, 
it would have set the matter right. Why did he not do it ? 
Because, forsooth, "this is not the question under discussion." 
This appears somewhat strange to me. Through his whole dis- 
course to prove universalism, he made the death of Christ the 
ground of his faith, which, of course, embraces the doctrine of 
atonement. Christ " ^aye himself a ransom for all." "He 
tasted deMh for every man." When I compared his course 
of reasoning with the well known views of universalists, he 
happened to discover that the atonement had nothing to do 



143 



with this discussion ! If tills is not iJniJling, I am U!i.i!)le to 
determine wiiat is. 

II. It will be necessary to say but little at this time iii reply 
to his argument drawn from the will of God, inasmuch iis it 
was proved in my last that the will of God in the sense of his 
proof text is not done; and further, that his final, and absolute 
purposes are opposed to the unconditioacil salvation of all men. 

He has avowed his sentiments offiiUuh-m a little more fully 
on this occasion. He quotes my admission that it is the will of 
God to save all men, and says, " This is all we contend for, — 
namely, that he that doeth according to his will in the army of 
heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and v/ho work- 
eth all things after the counsel of his own will, should be ac- 
knowledged to be the God who will have all men to be saved 
and come unto the knowledge of the truth." My opponent re- 
ceives these texts which speaks of God's doing • ' a,ccording to 
his will," and working -'ail things after the counsel of his own 
Vvill," in their broadest and unlimited sense. If they prove any- 
thing to his purpose they prove that God's will is done in every 
particular. Now let us see what kind of a God he has got. 
God has connnanded that man should not murder his fellow 
man. This is according to his will. But a murder is commit- 
ted. This too, is according to his will. And then this poor 
man, who has been doing the will of God, in taking the blood 
of his neighbor, is condemned for wilful murder and hung. 
This too is according to the will of God ! ! In the first place 
God binds him by his law, " thou shait not Mil,'' then he takes 
him contrary to this law, and compels him to slay his neighbor, 
and then, by the same resistless will, he dooms him to the pun- 
ishment of death! O, wretched man! hast thou fallen into the 
hands of such a vascillating and cruel tyrant ? then hope not 
for future salvation; for if it be proved to-night that he wills 
the salvation of all msn, to-morrow he may doom all men to 
endless punishment. If this be so, then all the wars and blood- 
sheds, all the cruel persecutions of his children, all the outrage 
that has ever been committed upon the innocent and harmless, 



144 



yea, all the sin, wretchedness, and aulTering for these 6000 
years is according to the will of God! Are you, xny hearers, 
prepared for such a conclusion? And yet you cannot avoid it 
if you adopt tlie senliinents of my opponent. The simple mean- 
ing oi' these texts is, that God will execute his purposes in the 
adrninisti-ation of his government. The suhjects of his govern- 
ment are free agents, — and he has purposed that those who 
are ohedient and loyal subjects shall be saved, and those who 
refuse and rebel shall be damned. With this view, there is 
harmony in the divine attributes, and consistency in the divine 
administrations, and in no other light. 

We wiW glance once more at his proof texts, and w^ill take 
our leave of this argument. God " will have all men to be sav- 
ed, and come unto the knov/ledge of the truth.'" Nothing can 
be plainer than that the text teaches that it is God's will that 
all should now be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the 
truth now. But this is not the case. This I argued at length in 
my last, and raised an argument from his proof text against the 
certainty of God's will being done. This argument has not 
been met. All will admit that God wills the salvation of all 
men from sin in this life. Yes, this same apostle declares that 
" it is the will of God, even our sanctification," a state of grace 
which my opponent thinks no one enjoys in this life. Thus it is 
plain that God's w^ill is not done in the sense of this text, and 
how can it prove that all men will be finally holy and happy ? 
This text must be given up. 

(Perhaps I ought to notice one thing more. In my remarks on 
his proof text in Eph. I said that the phrase " all things" could 
not mean all men, for my opponent remarked that it could not 
mean those already in Christ. He wonders how I could thus 
unblushingly accuse him of what his manuscript plainly show- 
ed to be false. I ask, did he not say that it could oiot mean 
those already in Christ? Yes, he admits it now, and his man- 
uscript W'ill show it. How is it then, that I accused him of what 
is false ? Suppose he did remark that it embraced ' ' all intelli- 
gent beings," after saying thut it could not refer to those alrea- 
dy in Christj — am I bound to reconcile his inconsistencies and 



145 



contradictions. If I were I should have a harder task than he 
has given me yet.) 

He next attempts to reply to some of my remarks on his proof 
text in 1 Cor. xv. chapter. He says " the substance of his [my] 
argument, is, that only the resurrection of the body is spoken 
of in this chapter. It assures us that all will have a resurrec- 
tion, but it is not once said that all shall be made holy and hap- 
py. But I shall show you that it teaches a contrary doctrine." 
My opponent asks, " where has he shown this?" I suppose he 
intended to prove it by the 23d verse." Thus it seems, that in 
his estimation, I offered no proof to sustain my position that 1 
Cor. XV. was opposed to " the final holiness and happiness of 
all mankind," but he v/as left to conjecture what I intended to do. 
This is a very convenient way of getting rid of the arguments I 
presented. But he could not find out where I had shown this, 
or attempted to show it, notwithstanding he was present when 
the following arguments were presented from this desk, and 
had my manuscript which contained them for a week aflerwards. 
Nor is this the first time I have been under the necessity of re- 
peating my arguments before he could see them. Here they 
are, and our hearers can judge whether they sustain the point 
or not. 

On this text. (1 Cor. xv: 21 — 25,) I submit the following 
remarks: — 

1. The death and resurrection of the body only is treated of 
in this chapter. Not one word said in all this " glorious chap- 
ter" about "the final holiness and happiness of all mankind." 
It assures us that all will have 'a resurrection, but it is not once 
said that all shall be made holy and happy. But I shall show 
you that it teaches a contrary doctrine. 

2. The text teaches that Jesus Christ is to make his second 
advent at the end of this world — a doctrine entirely fatal to 
the theory of my opponent. Speaking of the order of the re- 
surrection, the apostle says, Christ the first fruits afterward 
ihey that are ChrisVs at his coming." This my opponent says 

is plain, literal language." If so the resurrection of the 
righteous must take place when Christ comes. It is certain 
that he must make his personal appearance at the time of the 

19 



146 



resurrection. This is plainly asserted by the same apostle, in 
*' plain, literal language," 1 Thess. iv: 16. ''For the Lord 
HIMSELF shall descend from heaven tviih a shoid, ivith the voice of 
the archangel , and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ 
shall rise first."" Thus his proof text bears on its very face a 
doctrine which he has positively denied in the course of this dis- 
cussion; and which destroys his whole theory! Let this be re- 
membered, 

3. At the coming of Christ here spoken of, his enemies " shall 
be pid under his fiet.'^ This my opponent assumes " is a spirit- 
ual and willing subjection to Christ." This is entirely without 
evidence. On the contrary, it is plain that this subjection is not 
voluntary; but that it is the subjection of enemies to destroy 
them. They are to be " put under his feet.'" This does not 
imply their restitution. An enemy may be subdued without be- 
ing restored to favor." The apostle, says Mr. Isaac, "here 
undoubtedly alludes to the custom of conquerors treading on 
the necks of their enemies. The captains of Joshua put their 
feet on the necks of the five kings they had subdued; but it was 
preparatory to their destruction, not to their restoration. Other 
scriptures which speak of the transactions to take place at the 
time of the resurrection fully confirms this view of the subject. 
We will introduce Matt. xiii. 36 — 43. Let it be remembered 
that this is not a para6Ze, but the explancdion of a parable." 
*' And his disciples came unto him, saying, declare unto us the 
parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto 
them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man; the 
field is the world; the good seed are the children of the king- 
dom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one. The 
enemy that sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of 
the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the 
tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the 
end of this ivorld. The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, 
and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things which offend, 
and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of 
fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall 
the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their 
Father. Who hath ears to hear let him hear." This is Christ's 



147 



explanation cf his own parable, and it clearly teaches what the 
subjection of his enemies will be at the resurrection. Matt, xxv: 
31 — 48, teaches the same doctrine, notwithstanding all that my 
opponent has said to the contrary. In my first article I urged 
seven objections to his application of it, which are so many argu- 
ments in favor of mine, since no one contends for a third appli- 
tion of it. These objections he did not meet. In my last I re- 
peated four of them at greater length, which I consider as un- 
answerable arguments in favor of a general judgment, when 
those events will take place mentioned in 1 Cor. xv. Again, 
Christ plainly teaches, John v. 28, 29, that all will not come 
forth to spiritual life at the resurrection. The hour is coming, 
in the which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and 
shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrec- 
tion of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection 
of damnation." This is "plain, literal language." That God's 
enemies will be destroyed, and not made holy, at the coming of 
Christ, is evident from the *' plain, literal language of Paul, 2 
Thess. i. 7 — 9. " When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed 
from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, tailing ven- 
geance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall he punished with everlast- 
ing destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory 
of his power. ''^ I must still urge this as one of my proof texts, 
for my opponent has not proved his application of it. It con- 
firms the doctrine of his proof text in 1 Cor. that Christ is to 
come at the resurrection, while it clearly shows what the sub- 
jection of his enemies will be. Thus far his arguments turn 
against his own system with resistless force. 

These are the arguments that were put forth to show that his 
proof text in Cor. not only fails to prove the final holiness and 
happiness of all mankind, but it teaches the opposite sentiment. 
You can judge whether they were of sufficient importance to 
deserve his notice, and if they were why did he not meet them 
Is it not plain that he felt unable to answer them, and therefore 
thought it best to let them pass.^ So I judge. 

One of the passages quoted in the foregoing arguments, he 
has noiiced, namely, John v, 28, 29. " Marvel not at thi* for 



148 



the hour is coming in the which all that are in their graves shall 
hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good 
unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto 
the resurrection of damnation." I shall object to his disposal 
of it altogether. He asks, " Does this passage have reference 
to the same resurrection taught in the 15th chapter of 1 Cor. V 
and answers nay," " Does this testimony in John 5th relate 
to the resurrection of our mortal bodies?" He answers, " no !'* 
What convenient arguments ! He applies it to the destruction 
of Jerusalem, but how it was then fulfilled in that event he does 
not tell us. The Jews being in their moral graves at that time, 
means, I suppose, that they were in a state of moral death. 
Now all that were in their moral graves at the time Jerusalem 
was destroyed, came forth; they that had done good, i. e. the 
righteous, those that were already alive in Christ, and conse- 
quently had, already, eternal life, they came forth to the resur- 
rection of life ! And they that had done evil, i. e. the wicked, 
who were already morally dead, came forth to the resurrection 
of damnation, or condemnation ! ! Who ever heard of a guilty 
sinner who is condemned already, having a moral resurrection 
to condemnation before? I need say no more to notice the 
absurdity of this application. 

My opponent says, " the word resurrection, in the passage 
in John, affords no proof that the allusion is to a rising to an 
immortal slate, — for as Dr. Campbell Jz/s^/y observes, this is 
neither the only, nor the primitive import of the word anasastis.'^ 
For my part, I do not consider myself sufficientli/ learned, as 
yet, to sit in judgment upon the criticisms of such a learned man 
as Dr. Campbell, so I am not so well prepared to decide wheth- 
er the Dr. remarks "justli/^' or zmjustly concerning the Greek 
Language. So you see, my learned opponent has the advantage 
of me in this respect; and it becomes me as a young man, to 
learn modesty." It would, however, have afforded me much 
greater satisfaction, had my opponent, instead of giving a gar- 
bled quotation from Dr. Campbell, have given his remarks on 
the definition of anastasis, and its application in the scriptures 
entire ; for then our hearers could have judged better of the 
strength of his argument. 



1 19 

But our business with this word is its meaning as used in the 
scriptures, and its application by the sacred writers. " Anas- 
tasis,'^ says President Dwiglit, as used in the New-Testament, 
properly means the future existence of man. Its original and 
literal meaning is to stand up, or to stand again. It is transla- 
ted in our English Bible Resurrection, which implies both the 
act of beinor raised, and the state of the risen." Dr. Dvvight 

O ' CD 

was one of the best Greek scholars of his day, and the learned 
President of Yale College. Dr. Robinson, the Greek Lexicog- 
rapher, and one of the most distinguished scholars of the pre- 
sent age, says, " Anastasis, which means to be risen up, from 
anistemi, to come, to rise up, is used in the scriptures in rela- 
tion to the resurrection of the body from death. It is spoken 

1. of individuals who have returned to life, Heb. ii. 35, women 
received their dead, ex anastaseos, from resurrection, i. e. rais- 
ed again to life. This same word is used in speaking of the 
resurrection of Jesus in Acts i. 22 ; ii. 31 ; iv. 33 ; xvii. 
18; Rom. i. 4; vi. 5; Phil. iii. 10; 1 Peter i. 3; iii. 21. 

2. It is used in speaking of the future and general resur- 
rection at the end of all things. Acts xvii. 42. " And when 
they heard of the ( anastasin nckron,) the resurrection of the 
dead." In Acts xxiv. 15 ; xxvi 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 21, 42, 
the phrase anastasis ton nekron, resurrection of the dead, oc- 
curs. The same phrase is in Heb. vi. 2, and is connected 
with eternal judgment. Anastaseos tc nekron kai krimatos 
aioniou. Resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. In 
John v. 29, (the text in question) anastasin is used in speaking 
of the resurrection both of the righteous and the wicked. They 
that have done good, (eis anastasin zoes) resurrection unto 
life, i.e. eternal happiness. And they that have done evil, 
(eis anastasin kriseos,) resurrection unto condemnation, i. e. 
eternal misery." — So much for his criticism on the word rcs- 
urrection. The same word that is translated resurrection in 
my proof text, and which my opponent says does not refer to 
the resurrection of the body, is the same word which occurs in 
all his proof texts which relate to the resurrection. Now I ask, 
what evidence is there to support his bold assertion, that the 
resurrection in John v. is not the same as that in 1 Cor. xv ? 



150 



not the least. All we have is his bare assertion ; against this I 
place the united testimony of the scriptures, and the decision of 
the most distinguished scholars, and will let our hearers decide 
who is entitled to the argument. He thinks that the same is 
meant by corning to life in the 29th verse of John v, as is meant 
in the 25th verse. But a few remarks will settle this question. 
I will try to discriminate." 

Throughout the New Testament, wherever the literal resur- 
rection of Christ or the bodies of men is spoken of, the word 
anastasin is invariably used. In John v. 24 — 29, both a spir- 
itual and a literal resurrection are spoken of. The first is from 
a death in sin, in which sinners are destitute of spiritual life, 
verse 25. In this verse the word anasiasin is not used. As 
the transformation is merely from spiritual death to zoen, (life,) 
which word is used here. In verses 28, 29, the Savior says, 
Marvel not at what I have said unto you, of bringing the dead 
in sin to life, for the hour is coming in which you shall see a 
more visible and amazing proof of the power and ability of the 
Son of man ; for all who are in their graves shall hear his 
voice, and shall come forth. Here we have for the first time 
in the paragraph, graves, and in verse 29, the terms anastasin 
zoes, and anastasin krifos, resurrection of life, and resurrec- 
tion of damnation ; which most clearly show that two different 
things are referred to in the different sentences in the passage. 
I trust it is now proved that this text treats of the literal resur- 
rection of the righteous and wicked. The one to eternal life, 
and the other to eternal damnation, consequently, universalism 
is proved to be false. Yes, this one text is enough. 

The subject of chap, xv, of 1 Corinthians, is the resurrec- 
tion of the human body ; and the text so much relied on by my 
opponent, " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all 
be made alive," is to be understood of the natural death and 
resurrection of the body alone. And as we have " borne the 
image of the earthly, Adam in a frail and corruptible body, 
so shall we bear the image of the heavenly Adam, Christ Je- 
sus, in his spiritual and incorruptible body. In Luke xx. 
34 — 36, our Savior answers the question of the Sadducees, 



151 



respecing the right of seven brethren to one \voiij;in in tlie re»j- 
urrection. He says, In the resurrection they neither marry, 
nor are given in m;;rriage ; neither can they die any more ;" 
but in both these respects i3re like the " cinrrels," and are the 
children of God, not because they are holy, but because 
they are "the children of the resurrection." There is notiiing 
in this text or context, that favors universalism in the least. 

HI. He is obliged to p iss by my remarks on his promis- 
cuous scriptures, for the want of room, " with but a word of 
comment." An his " word of comment" deserves no reply, I 
will pass on. It is sufficient to show that his proof texts con- 
tain doctrines which are fatd to his theory. This was shown 
in my last to be true of Romans v. and he has made no at- 
tempt to show to the contrary. 

I have now examined all my opponent's principal passages, 
but do not find universal salvation in one of them ; and liow 
any person who reflects seriously, and thinks closely, can satis- 
fy himself that the doctrine is true, on so slight grounds, is not 
easy to conjecture. Indeed, it has been shown that his very 
proof texts are against his doctrine. He says, " it was my in- 
tention to produce much other testimony in support of the glo- 
rious gospel, or glad tidings of a world's redemption, but my 
limits do not admit." Just look at this. He had no room for 
further scripture testimony, but has occupied a long space with 
matter entirely foreign to the discussion. V7hy has he left the 
plain testimony of the Bible, when our question confines us to 
the scriptures, and labored to prove his doctrine from the 
perfections of God, and an appeal to human sympathies? The 
question is, " Do the scriptures teach the doctrine of the final 
holiness and happiness of all mankind 1" Would he have left 
the question, if he had been satisfied that the scriptures teach 
his doctrine ? 1 think our hearers must regard this as yielding 
the point — the scriptures are not suflicient to support his doc- 
trine. He can offer no excuse for this departure, for he him- 
self remarked in his first discourse on the aflirmative, " As my 
time is very brief, and I am wholly confined to the scriptures, 
you will perceive that I am obliged to omit the thousand argu- 



152 



ment.s I might derive from reason, from the workings of God's 
s])irit on the renewed heart, and from God's teachings in na- 
ture." But he is forced to call in some of his " thousand ar- 
guments" after all. He has left the question, has left the Bible, 
and gone off in a tangent, to find somthing to support a sink- 
ing cause. How true it is, " a drowning man will catch at a 
straw." 

I am under no obligation to reply to his arguments drawn 
from the perfections of God, and the feelings of earthly parents, 
as they have nothing to do with the question we agreed to dis- 
cuss. But for the sake of showing that his cause can find no 
support from these new sources, I will give them a passing 
notice. 

1. I shall take ground that the attributes of God, aside from 
revelation and matter of fact, do not furnish sufficient data from 
whence to deduce conclusions concerning man's future desti- 
tiny. In support of this position, I offer the following con- 
siderations. 

" (1.) God cannot make a full revelation of himself to us, 
in view of our want of capacity to comprehend infinity. The 
attributes of God can be fully known only to himself; hence 
any conclusions drawn from the divine perfections, are deduc- 
tions drawn from premises we do not understand, and our con- 
clusions must be as uncertain as our knowledge of the premi- 
ses is imperfect. We do not say that we do not know what 
some of the divine perfections are; God has revealed to us that 
he is almighty, wise, just, holy and good; but we cannot so un- 
derstand these perfections as to be able to determine from 
them, aside from scripture and matter of fact, what is, and what 
is not consistent with them. We can determine what is, and 
what is not, consistent with the attributes of God, only by what 
we see actually exist, or from what God has said in the 
scriptures. If my opponent will prove from the Bible that 
all men will be saved, we shall be bound to admit that it is con- 
sistent with the divine perfections, to save, in a future world, 
those who only abuse his mercies in this, and die inunbeUef and 
contempt of his authority; and if I can prove from the scrip- 



153 

tures, as I trust I have, that some men will be endlessly mis- 
erable, he will be bound to admit that endless punishment is 
consistent with the divine attributes, though he may not be a- 
ble to see any reason in the divine attributes why it should be 
so. That we cannot discover what is, and what is not, consis- 
tent with the divine perfections is clear, from the simple fact, 
that providence has already developed many things for which 
we can see no reason in the divine perfections. I presume my 
opponent can see no reason in the divine goodness, why a holy, 
devoted and useful minister should be put to the rack, and 
caused to suffer a most painful death by the hand of an ungodly 
sinner; and I can see no reason in the divine justice why God 
should take the murdered and the murderer to the same heaven. 

" (2.) The perfections of God do not enable us to deter- 
mine w^hat the desert of sin is; a point that must be settled be- 
fore it can appear that endless punishment is not consistent 
with the divine justice and goodness. Can my opponent, from 
any knowledge he has of the divine perfections, clearly deter- 
mine the extent of the evils of sin, and what and how much 
punishment the sinner is liable to endure ^ If he can, he will 
confer a favor on the world to speak out, and say just what and 
how much the sinner must endure, to answer the claims of the 
divine law; and if he cannot determine from the divine perfec- 
tions, what and how much the sinner deserves, he cannot know 
but that a punishment worse, and much longer than he has im- 
agined, may be consistent with the perfections of God. We 
believe these points must be settled by the law and the testi- 
mony of God's word, and not by some rule of consistency, in 
our own imaginations, by which we w^ould direct the attributes 
of God in the government of the w^orld. 

(3.) The perfections of God in our opinion, do not of them- 
selves, so far as we are enabled to understand them, prove the 
immortality of the soul or the resurrection of the body. What 
is there discoverable in the perfections of God, that proves 
that the spirit of man, that goeth upward, is any more immor- 
tal than the spirit of the beast that goeth downward ? or that 
•our bodies will be raised any more than theirs ? And if a future 

20 



154 



ftate is not clearly discoverable in the perlections of God, they 
cannot, independently of direct revelation, prove the final sal- 
vation of all men, 

" (4.) If the future destiny of man can be determined from 
the perfections of God, no good reason can be given why every 
other point in theology cannot be proved in the same way. 
Now, will my opponent contend that he can discover what is 
truth, and what is error, from his knowledge of the divine per- 
fections? If he can, then all those portions of the scriptures^ 
which do not relate to the attributes of God, are not necessary 
in order to a correct theory of religion; and if he cannot deter- 
mine from the attributes of God, what is, and what is not re- 
ligious truth, it cannot appear that he can prove from this 
source, what will be the punishment of sin, or the sinner's final 
destiny. It must be perfectly plain ; that if we have a view of 
the perfections of God sufficiently clear, to enable us to deter- 
mine what is, and what is not, consistent with them, we can 
need no further revelation than that which relates directly to 
God and his other attributes; for whatever is consistent with 
the divine attributes must be true, and does or may exist; and 
whatever is not consistent with the divine attributes, does not, 
and cannot exist. 

" (5.) So far as any thing can be proved, from the perfec- 
tions of God, on this subject, the argument is in our favor. 
Though we cannot discern what is consistent with the perfec- 
tions of God, from any view we have of his perfections ; yet we 
can determine that some things are consistent with them, from 
the actual existence of the things themselves. We know that 
whatever does exist must be consistent with the divine perfec- 
tions; hence, when we behold the existence of any thing and 
ipfer from thence that such thing is consistent with the perfec- 
tions of God, we reason from matter of fact, and not from the 
divine perfections. We cannot prove from the perfections of 
God that the existence of sin and misery are consistent with 
such perfections, yet this point can be proved from matter of 
fact; for sin and misery do exist, and therefore, we know, from 
their actual existence, that their existence is consistent with 
the perfections of God. This throws the weight of the argu- 



155 



ment into our side of tho scales, for matter of fact says it is 
consistent with the divhie perfections that sin and misery should 
exist, while matter of fact cannot be brought to bear on the 
other side of the question. Matter of fact cannot prove that 
it is consistent with the divine perfections to save all men, 
whatever may be their conduct, for all men are not saved. 
Not only so, but it is now consistent with the divine perfections 
that sin and misery should exist, and as these attributes are un- 
changeable, the inference is a fair one that it may always be 
consistent with the divine perfections that sin and misery should 
«xist. I think I have now removed the entire foundation of 
every argument drawn from the perfections of God, in favor 
of universalism ; hence, the arguments must fall."* 

I will here notice one or two inquiries, to which my atten- 
tion is particularly called. He says, " my brother has ac- 
knowledged that it is God's will that all men should be saved. 
If then, God would save all mankind, but cannot, is he infinite 
in power If God can save all mankind, but loill not, is he in- 
finite in goodness ? I will thank my brother to carefully ex- 
amine these questions — drawn from the acknowledged char- 
acter of God, as revealed in the scriptures, in his rejoinder. 
They are affirmative arguments with me." 

I reply, that it is acknowledged that God is infinite in good- 
ness and benevolence; consequently, he must desire the hap- 
piness of all his creatures at all times. But this world has 
been full of sin and misery for 6000 years. Now to show the 
fallacy of my opponent's reasoning, I will adopt it in this case. 
If then, God would make all mankind holy and happy in this 
state of existence, but cannot, is he infinite in power? If God 
can jnake all mankind holy and happy now, but ivill not, is he 
infinite in goodness?" — Thus it is seen how easily all his 
questions which relate to the power and goodness of God, 
might be turned round, and demand an answer of him which 
he cannot give without destroying his own arguments. Into 
what labyrinths of inconsistency and absurdity is a man thrown, 
when he denies the free agency of men, and the conditionality 
of salvation! Admit these and there is no difficulty in harmo- 



156 



nizing the divine attributes with God's deahngs with men, and 
the doctrines of the Bible. And what follij, not to say blaspJie- 
my, for poor, finite man to sit in judgment on the government 
of Almighty God, and undertake to tell what would, and what 
would not be consistent for God to do! O, Presumption! 
where is thy shame ? Teach me, thou Sovereign of the uni- 
verse, to sit at the foot of the cross, with a submissive spirit, 
willing that thou shouldest reign! 

2. My opponent has made an appeal to human sympathies, to 
prove that all mankind will be finally holy and happy. He 
wants to know what would be thought of a parent who would 
do so and so with a child. I ask what would you think of a pa- 
rent who would drown his children, as God drowned the anti- 
deluvians ? or who should burn them as God did the inhabitants 
of Sodom 

The conduct and feelings of earthly parents are no rule for 
the administration of the divine government. God will not be 
governed by sympathy, but by his own eternal and immutable 
justice. 

Thus much for his new arguments. I think this brief notice 
is sufficient to show that they prove nothing to his purpose. 

I have now done with the arguments of my opponent. Our 
candid hearers are left to decide in reference to the arguments 
which have been offered on both sides of the question. It has 
been my object in the course of this discussion, to present, and 
defend truth. God is my judge, to him I must give an account. 
The feelings I have indulged, the spirit I have manifested, the 
course I have pursued, is all open before him with whom! have 
to do. The result of the discussion on my own mind has been 
to increase my confidence in the doctrine I have advocated. I 
fully believe it to be the doctrine of the Bible, and unless I seek 
a refuge in the merits of Jesus Christ by a living faith, I shall 
expect to share, and thai justly too, the torments of the damned. 

I respectfully request our hearers to call to mind the argu- 
ments which have been presented on both sides, and see if they 
can be satisfied beyond a doubt, that the arguments in favor of 
endless punishment have been fully met and satisfactorily an- 
swered. Also, if the position that all mankind will be finally 



157 



holy and happy, has been fully sustained by plain scripture 
testimony. Are you fullij satisfied that eternal salvation is not 
conditional? If so, how do you reconcile it with Heb. v. 9. 
Jesus Christ " became the author of eternal salvation to all 
them that obey him?" Are you fully satisfied that God has ab- 
soluteli/ purposed to make all men finally holy and happy? If 
so, where is it recorded? Has my opponent produced any such 
passage? Ave you fully satisfied that at the resurrection all 
will come forth to spiritual life ? Are you not rather satisfied 
that I have proved to the contrary this evening ? The argu- 
ments are before you, and you can decide. May the Spirit of 
truth lead you to a right decision! If you are not perfectly sure 
that all will be saved, let their moral character here be what it 
will, let me invite you to Christ, where you may find rest to 
your souls. I ask you not to believe in my peculiar sentiments 
as the condition of salvation, — but " believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ with all thy heart, and thou shall be saved." So the 
SPIRIT testifieth. Amen. 



Errata. As I had not the opportunity of seehig all the proof sheets of my 
discourses, several slight errors in punctuation, quotation marks, ^'C. have escaped 
without correction. 

On page 104, 18 lines from the bottom^ read, so his will mav be done, or it 
may not be done." F. YATES. 



825 






V ^ 




^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
- ^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
^ Treatment Date: IVlay 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



